Genealogy and Learning Among Teenagers

Full text

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON GENEALOGY AND THE SCIENCES
37
Genealogy and Learning Among Teenagers
by Arnon Hershkovitz, PhD
Genealogy as a lifelong learning experience: Framing what many of us know already
Millions of people worldwide study their family history through genealogy research. Usu-
ally undertaken during leisure time, this practice typically includes constructing a family tree, col-
lecting vital records and historical documents, interviewing close and distant relatives to document
family lore, and travelling to ancestral towns and archives, among other activities. Genealogists
usually spend many hours online searching databases, looking for relatives, consulting and sharing
with peers and family, and exploring in order to establish and extend their knowledge of their
family history.
As genealogy has gained popularity, genealogists have been studied mainly through the
lenses of sociology. Erben (1991)—in what might be the first sociological publication on geneal-
ogy—noted that “genealogy is becoming an increasingly popular and highly time consuming rec-
reational activity and as such is a phenomenon worthy of sociological research.” These studies
often are focused on why people study their family history as well as on issues related to identity
and belongingness (Erben, 1991; Kramer, 2011a; Nash, 2002). What and how genealogists learn
during their pursuit of their family history, however, barely have been studied.
Genealogy is a learning process assumed to take place on at least three levels. First, those
who engage in such research learn about their family history. Second, genealogists learn about
themselves; indeed, genealogy research often helps people connect to their family history and to
their inner selves (Kramer, 2011b; Lambert, 1996). Third, people who engage in genealogy re-
search might gain knowledge about unfamiliar resources and about new research techniques,
thereby advancing their own research skills; in other words, genealogists learn about genealogy
research itself.
These learning-related aspects of genealogy only recently have begun to be studied aca-
demically. A seminal study of hobbyist genealogists who pursued their research willingly pointed
to six characteristics of genealogy as lifelong learning: Harmonious passion, suddenly triggered;
implementation of research practices; inductive and deductive relationships with multiple disci-
plines; technology as a research partner; consuming information and producing knowledge in mul-
tiple representations; and strengthening intergenerational connections—present, past and future
(Arnon Hershkovitz & Hardof-Jaffe, 2017). Adding to that, Hart (2018) recently suggested that in
addition to lifelong-learning, education meets genealogy in self-directed learning and collaborative
learning. Furthermore, Hart highlighted how genealogists expend their education as their research
progress, mostly by attending conferences, networking with peers and professional researchers,
and taking courses.
Genealogy goes to school: Is it the same kind of learning?
The view of genealogy as a true learning process, as was detailed above, holds true for a
specific kind of genealogy practicing, that is, when it is ignited and self-directed by self-motivated
adults. When genealogy enters schools, however, it may assume a totally different shape. Under
the auspices of a formal learning institute, students may perceive the task of researching their
family history as tedious and obligatory, just like any other school-related task, and, therefore, may
not benefit from the pursuit in the same way as do those who engage in it willingly. Additionally,

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON GENEALOGY AND THE SCIENCES
38
we may expect that children will gain differently from this experience, according to their develop-
mental stage.
Genealogy and family history has been part of school curricula in many different ways.
This definitely is not a recent trend considering that genealogy school projects have existed for
more than three decades (e.g., Flack, 1986; Hickey, 1999; Sitton & Goodwin, 1986). Allowing
children to be personally involved when studying about historical events, by giving voice to their
own family stories, may increase their enthusiasm and curiosity. It also might be an opportunity to
discuss broader issues of historical enquiry (Barrett, 2011).
“Roots” project in Israel
For the past several decades, Israeli schools have included a unique program, the “Roots”
project (Avodat Shorashim in Hebrew) in which students study and document their own family
history as a school assignment. What makes it unique, as will be explained below, is that although
it is part of the curriculum, it is de-facto an extra-curricular project.
Started at the early 1980s at the suggestion of the Israeli Ministry of Education, individual
school participation has been voluntary. Most commonly, it has been included in secular state
schools Mamlachti, usually in the seventh grade, as part of celebrating the bar mitzvah year.
Schools from the other tracks (that is, state-religious [Mamlachti Dati], independent-religious
[Haredi], and Arab) traditionally have participated in this project to a much lesser degree, if at all.1
Originally, and ever since, the project was mostly aimed at documenting individual stu-
dents' family histories in order to portray the spirit of Gathering of Israel (Kibbutz Galuyot) in the
modern era. Also, it started at a time when the Holocaust memory was mainstreamed in the Israeli
public discourse, after decades of suppressing it by the Holocaust survivors. At that point, the
survivors' children became parents, and started to re-think their experiences (Shapira, 2003;
Wajnryb, 1999). Thus, in its very essence, one of the main purposes of the project was to document
the young students’ lineages and their family stories, in that way highlighting the diversity of the
Israeli population.
Over the years, this program was treated inconsistently by the schools that participated in
it. On the one hand, it has been highlighted as an important, value-adding program for the students,
and usually it concluded with a special family history-themed event, often including the students’
families. On the other hand, the students were not given any support for carrying out this big pro-
ject, besides getting a nice list of guidelines and a submission date. It has become a Hanukkah-
until-Passover-do-it-at-home project, and has been seen by many students as a burden. And of
course, it has become a burden for the parents as well (although I have met people who became
interested in genealogy after engaging in this project with their children). As schools’ guidelines
have not dramatically changed (if at all) over the years, many students have copied major parts of
the project from their older siblings, since it was about the very same family history.
In recent years, the Ministry of Education has shifted the program a bit to reflect a more
meaningful, long-lasting learning process (in the spirit of a broader educational change both in
Israel and worldwide). Its potential audience officially was extended to include fifth to ninth
grades, and it explicitly highlights the importance of developing research skills. It also includes a
1 Personal correspondences and discussions of the author with officials in the Israeli Ministry of
Education.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON GENEALOGY AND THE SCIENCES
39
national competition for excellent students’ works.2
Roots Project is a fertile ground for research about the associations between genealogy and
learning among teenagers. Indeed, all but one of the studies presented in this paper discuss issues
related to the Roots Project. The last study also refers to a similar age population, in quite a differ-
ent context of engaging with family history.
The Studies
Study 1. What do Students Learn from “Roots” Project?
In this qualitative study (N=17 seventh-grade Israeli students with eight girls and nine
boys), our goal was to have a deep understanding of the students’ learning experience after they
completed their “Roots” project. The deep interviews were taken when they submitted the final
product.
Not surprisingly, we found that the students primarily were following the guidelines for
the task that they had been given at school, and in many ways these guidelines limited their action
and creativity. For example, in many cases, the guidelines were strict about which research ques-
tions the students should ask, which information to seek and how to analyze the information. The
students usually followed the written instructions. A direct result of this practice is that the students
did not take any steps not explicitly mentioned in the guidelines, the most prominent example
being the absence of guidelines for information validation.
One exception to that finding is the use of technology. Although the guidelines mentioned
the use of technology only minimally, the students did use it extensively, probably because of the
role technology plays in their lives. Primarily, they used their smartphones to manage various
tasks; for example, they used it to record interviews (to be transcribed later), to type interviewees’
responses during an interview, or to take pictures of various documents. Another exception to the
above finding is that in some cases the students expanded their research in ways not mentioned in
the guidelines when they found something interesting or important to them; for example, one stu-
dent documented stories told to her by her mother, about some distant family members, and then
decided to interview those people as well. And another student decided to extend her research on
her parents’ immigration story and on their military service.
As for their learning, it seems that overall the students did benefit greatly from the project.
The students were able to report on knowledge gains in the three basic aspects of learning. Cogni-
tively, all students had learned a great deal about their family history. Meta-cognitively, they were
practicing and improving their skills in collaborative learning (i.e., working together with other
family members who helped them along the way) and in conducting research. Finally, the students
had developed positive emotions towards their family members and felt proud of themselves upon
completing the task successfully.
Although the students had experienced a positive learning experience and had extended
their knowledge in a few levels, it seems that they would have benefitted even more had the guide-
lines been less like a tedious laundry list and more like a set of thought-provoking ideas; also, more
support from school would have benefited the students greatly.
2 See the Israeli Ministry of Education's statement regarding the renewed "Roots" project,
http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Mazkirut_Pedagogit/moreshet/Mi-
falim/DorLdor/taharut_tashav.htm [in Hebrew}

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON GENEALOGY AND THE SCIENCES
40
Study 2a. Implementing Research Practices
In this quantitative study, a self-report, online questionnaire (using Google Forms) was
completed by 51 seventh-grade Jewish students who submitted a “Roots” project. Items in the first
part of the questionnaire asked about research practices during the learning process:
1. Was it the teacher or you who stated the main questions that led your research?
[Teacher/Self]
2. Did you compare information from different sources? [Yes/No]
3. Which of the following skills of yours were improved as a result of conducting the project?
[summarizing, searching information online, writing questions, interviewing]
4. Which of the following did you use to get information during the project? [interviews,
pictures, documents, my older sibling’s “Roots” project, trip, Internet, history books, fic-
tion books]
5. Which family members did you interview (if at all)? [mother, father, brother, sister, mater-
nal grandmother, maternal grandfather, paternal grandmother, paternal grandfather,
mother’s sibling(s), father’s sibling(s)]
6. Did you learn anything new about your family? [Yes/No]
7. Did you learn anything that you should pass on to your future descendants? [Yes/No]
The vast majority of the students in this group (about 80 percent) reported that it was the
teacher who stated the research question to lead the project. Regarding the research itself, the most
popular means for obtaining information was the interview (about 85 percent of the participants),
followed by pictures (70 percent), older siblings’ completed “Roots” projects (51 percent), the
Internet (47 percent), and historical documents (39 percent). Only a few participants had used
books or took trips to family-related places. About half of the participating students stated that
they had compared information from various sources.
Not surprisingly, almost all participants had learned new information from the project, and
more than 85 percent explicitly stated that they should bequeath this information to their (future)
descendants. Of the skills obtained, the most common was interviewing (62 percent), followed by
summarizing (48 percent), writing questions (21 percent), and searching for information online
(10 percent).
Study 2b. Strengthening Intergenerational Relationships within the Family
The second part of the same questionnaire from Study 2a was focused on the relationships
between the teens who conducted the “Roots” project and their family members:
1. To whom do you feel closer today, compared to your feelings before conducting the pro-
ject? [mother, father, brother, sister, maternal grandmother, maternal grandfather, paternal
grandmother, paternal grandfather, mother’s sibling(s), father’s sibling(s)]
2. To what extend do you now feel connection to your family members who lived in the past?
[1 – Not at all, 5 – Very much]
At least one third of the participating teens reported that they felt closer than before to both
of their parents, as well as to each of their grandparents; interestingly, more teens mentioned their
grandmothers (over 41 percent) than their grandfathers (about 33 percent); this is in line with many
previous studies that showed that grandmothers are more involved than grandfathers in the lives
of their grandchildren, and that grandchildren reported better relationships with grandmothers than
with grandfather (Attar-Schwartz & Buchanan, 2018; Creasey & Koblewski, 1991; Roberto &
Stroes, 1992). More than that, 32 of 51 of the participants (63 percent) reported that they felt a

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON GENEALOGY AND THE SCIENCES
41
connection to deceased family members to a high or very high extent (scores of 4 or 5 on a 5-point
Likert scale).
Study 3. Teachers’ Interest in and Experience with Genealogy
In a small-scale study, we surveyed middle-school teachers (N=7) who guided their stu-
dents during the “Roots” project (often taken by 7th-graders), asking about their interest in and
experience with genealogy and family history. As this project is part of the curriculum—hence
given as a formal assignment to students as part of the schooling experience—teachers play a key
role in the students’ endeavor while working on it, from the beginning to its submission. What the
teachers know about the topics relevant to that project is, therefore, important to understand.
The average age of the surveyed teachers is 36 (SD=6.3); on average, they have about eight
years (SD=7.5) teaching experience, and about four years (SD=2.9) experience guiding Roots pro-
jects. All of the teachers had no or limited experience with their own family history research (three
mentioned that their experience came from the time they were teens conducting a Roots project).
Those who mentioned some experience, said that it had lasted for only a few weeks, and that the
research mostly included family stories and interviews with family members with little access to
historical family documents, and with almost no outcome summaries.
Asked about their own motives for researching their family history and about whether their
students should conduct such research (and why) – the participating teachers supplied similar sets
of explanations. Their own motives included learning about the family history, connecting to fam-
ily members from past and present and keeping the family lore for future generations. Asked if it
is important for students to conduct such research, all of the teachers agreed that the Roots project
indeed is important. Their explanations focused mostly on the two first themes and did not mention
the students as the tradition-keepers. A possible explanation is that the teachers—at least 20 years
older than their students—see themselves as the lore-keepers and still do not expect their young
students to take this role.
Study 4. Teens’ Sense of Belonging and Closeness
In this intervention study, we paired ten Arab teens (boys and girls, 12 to 16 years old) with
their grandparents for the latter to tell the former about their own history through the “Nakba”
events (the very meeting and the story-telling during it were the intervention). Then, we used the
same questionnaire to collect data from the participating teens before and after the intervention,
measuring the teens’ feeling of closeness to their family members and feeling of belonging to
various societal circles (e.g., family, village, state).
The “Nakba” (Disaster in Arabic) is the name given by Arabs to the 1948 Palestinian exo-
dus, when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes during
Israel’s War of Independence. They settled either in refugee camps or in other villages; most never
returned to their former homes. It is basically the other side of the Israeli-independence coin, and
has become a key element of the Palestinian identity.
Findings were striking, but not so surprising. Participants’ feelings of closeness to their
parents and to their family were slightly increased as a result of the intervention (4.6 percent and
6.1 percent, respectively), while their feelings of closeness towards their grandparents and their
clan (hamula in Arabic) rocketed, with an increase of 52.1 percent and 49.1 percent respectively.
In addition, the teens’ sense of belongingness to Palestinian nationality had increased by 10.1 per-
cent. In contrast, the teens’ sense of belonging to their village, to the state of Israel, to the Arabic

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON GENEALOGY AND THE SCIENCES
42
nation and to the Islamic nation had decreased by 8.5 to 25.1 percent. That their sense of belonging
to the State of Israel had decreased is quite understandable, after all it is the State of Israel that is
perceived by the Palestinians to these days as responsible for the Nakba; the decrease in the sense
of belonging to the village, the Arabic nation and to the Islamic nation may be explained by the
collapse of the Palestinian leadership as a result of the Nakba, because of their disability to avoid
it, and by the failure of the Arabic and Islamic world to help the Palestinian refugees since then
(Schechtman, 1952).
Table 1. Teens’ pre- and post- feelings of closeness or
belonging to various family and societal circles
Closeness/Belon
g
in
g
To Pre Post % Chan
g
e
Parents 4.62 4.83 4.6
Grandparents 3.13 4.76 52.1
Famil
y
4.25 4.51 6.1
Clan (Hamula) 2.67 3.98 49.1
Villa
g
e/Cit
y
4.82 3.98 -17.4
State of Israel 3.79 3.32 -12.4
Palestinian Nationalit
y
4.28 4.71 10.1
Arabic Nation 3.79 2.84 -25.1
Islamic Nation 2.58 2.36 -8.5
Discussion
In this paper, we presented several studies that explore learning-related aspects of engaging
in genealogy among teens. Summarizing findings from these studies, we have seen that engaging
teens with family history projects can be beneficial to them cognitively, meta-cognitively and af-
fectively. Not surprisingly, teens that research their genealogy learn much about their family his-
tory. Furthermore, since pursuing genealogy requires some research skills, they improve these
skills even with only little (or no) support from school. Finally, they strengthen relationships with
their close family members (primarily parents and grandparents) and think positively about their
abilities to complete such a complicated task. When one's family history has some clear political
aspects, as in the case of study 4, getting acquainted with this history may indeed affect one’s sense
of self-identity and belonging. These findings nicely align with a study that explored the influence
on college students of a genealogy project that was carried out as a course project (Reiser, 2012).
The fact, however, that students learn something from a school task does not necessarily
mean that the task was successful. Evidence from our findings highlights drawbacks in the way
the “Roots” project currently is taught in Israeli schools. We find that what students learn is limited
largely to what they have been requested to do. Like in many other school-related tasks, students
simply follow the instructions. We find, for example, that they do not use technology as heavily
as one would expect from young 21st-century students. As many of us know, using technological
tools during genealogy research is almost a necessity to produce a meaningful project (Arnon
Hershkovitz & Hardof-Jaffe, 2017; Arnon Hershkovitz, 2012; Veale, 2004). This finding is inter-
esting but not surprising. Despite what many people may think of the abilities of today’s young
generation, even very recent studies still demonstrate that this generation’s digital abilities are
mostly focused on consuming entertainment and are not good enough for searching or assessing

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON GENEALOGY AND THE SCIENCES
43
online information, or to use technology for learning (LeBlanc, LeBlanc, Furlong, Leger, &
Freiman, 2018; Li, Snow, & White, 2015). Partly, this may reflect limited use of technology in
schools. Contrary to popular belief, an analysis of observations in more than 140,000 K to12 class-
rooms worldwide, revealed what has been known in the educational research community for a long
time: only relatively few classrooms use digital tools and technology regularly (van Broekhuizen,
2016).
While investigating the Israeli school-based genealogy project, we also studied the teach-
ers’ point of view. Although the “Roots” project is ostensibly a school project, in practice it is
mostly conducted out-of-school with little to no support from the school. This is quite understand-
able, since contrary to other subjects taught by schoolteachers, there are no teachers in school who
are experts in the subject matter of genealogy or in the pedagogy of teaching it. Teachers cannot
teach what they do not know. Though seeming obvious, this has become a key issue, since teacher
training and teaching personnel have not changed dramatically over the last few decades, while
school population has become much more diverse culturally and school-taught material has shifted
from being content-focused to being skills-focused (Howard, 2014; Rapoport, 2010).
We may conclude that teens do learn from engaging in a family history project, but their
learning could be much more beneficial if guided by their teachers and implementing advanced,
technology-enhanced learning strategies. To realize these expectations, teachers should be able to
support their students. Of course, we do not expect teachers to be expert genealogists, but even if
they are not, they could still support their students on issues related to project management and
general research inquiry. Students may, however, need further support with the genealogical as-
pects of their project, for example, where to look for a certain document or how to evaluate primary
and secondary sources. These could be better supported by genealogical societies, archives, and
librarians, thereby strengthening connections between the schools and these organizations. Making
such resources accessible to students may improve the overall experience of doing the project
(Parker, 1990), and may make teachers more familiar with genealogy, hence improving teachers'
ability to support students.
Recommendations
We recommend the following for conducting a successful, meaningful genealogy research
project in school.
Encourage students to ask the research questions. (Although this is a single component
of a broader learning method, (i.e., project-based learning, see next point), we refer to it explicitly
here, since it is central to the study of one's own family history. Any topic may be legitimate, be it
discussing an individual person in the family tree, studying the meaning of a related unique first
or last name, analyzing historical photos or documents, focusing on a trait, a profession or a hobby
in light of an heirloom. Genealogy has a few very different building blocks, and each of them may
be valid for that purpose (Herskovitz, 2012). This would increase students' engagement with- and
involvement in the project, hence will increase their motivation to conduct it. Also, this will allow
the project to be considered an individual rather than a family task, and will give meaning to a
second (or third) instance of conducting it within the same family.
Implement project-based learning. Project-based learning has proven to lead to
meaningful learning and improved skills. The fundamental elements of a good, project-based
learning are challenging questions, sustained inquiry, authenticity, student voice and choice, re-
flection, critique and revision and a public product (Larmer, Mergendoller, & Boss, 2015).

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON GENEALOGY AND THE SCIENCES
44
Reading this list, it is easy to relate each of these building stones to almost any genealogy research,
therefore this framing feels quite natural in that context. To conduct a successful project-based
learning experience, students should be supported by their teachers, and teachers should be sup-
ported by networking and professional development (Kokotsaki, Menzies, & Wiggins, 2016).
Make connections between the project and the curricular material taught in schools.
Genealogy research may be related to many disciplines and to a variety of topics students learn
anyhow, be it in history, geography, mathematics, civics, social studies, language, art, or any other
discipline. Being connected to other disciplines may benefit students by perceiving the project as
an inter-curricular activity, and may help them being more engaged to the other disciplines from
their own family’s point of view. In addition, making these connection may increase teachers'
engagement with the project.
Do not forget the teachers. Contrary to other disciplines they teach, teachers are not expert
on the subject matter of genealogy. Unlike the students, who likely conduct a major family history
project only once during their schooling, teacher may engage in this project yearly. Here is an
opportunity here to enhance the school team' knowledge of genealogy in an ongoing way. This
could be done by connecting with many relevant agents within the school community or within
larger circles. Which leads us directly to the next recommendation.
Do not forget the community. Local genealogical organizations, libraries, archives, par-
ents who are genealogists – this is only a short list of agents who may be assisting a genealogy
school project. Each of these could help in many different ways. Extending the school's relation-
ship with such agents, as well as with relevant people within its close community, will benefit the
students in this project and will also benefit the school community (comprising of the school’s
students, staff, parents, and local community) at large.
Do not forget technology. In today's digital era, genealogy without technology is almost
like a fish without water. Technology is vital for genealogists, and there is no reason it should not
be treated as such when it comes to student projects. Using technology not only will enhance stu-
dents’ product, and hence, what they learn from the process, but it will also enhance their digital
skills. Of course, this too should be accompanied by support from school (which brings us back to
talking about support to teachers and teachers' learning).
Support students emotionally. Students and families may need support, mostly emo-
tional, when it comes to the study and documentation of various family affairs that may be con-
sidered as embarrassing or generally non-consensual; for example, students may discover that
some family members were adopted, born out-of-wedlock, jailed and so forth.
Acknowledgements
Study 1 is based on the research of Dvorit Cohen that was conducted towards a Masters’
thesis at Tel Aviv University’s School of Education. The other studies reported here are based on
research seminars that were conducted as part of a graduate-level Genealogy and Learning aca-
demic courses given at Tel Aviv University’s School of Education. The students whose studies are
reported here are (by order of appearance of their studies): Dorit Nuema, Yael Desata, Ido
Kimalov, and Jihda Kitana. The author would like to thank these students.
References
Attar-Schwartz, S., & Buchanan, A. (2018). Grandparenting and adolescent well-being:
evidence from the UK and Israel. Contemporary Social Science, 13(2), 219–231.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON GENEALOGY AND THE SCIENCES
45
https://doi.org/10.1080/ 21582041.2018.1465200
Barrett, P. (2011). “My grandfather slammed the door in Winston Churchill’s face!” Using
family history to provoke rigorous enquiry. Teaching History, 145, 14–21. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/913134568?pq-origsite=gscholar
Creasey, G. L., & Koblewski, P. J. (1991). Adolescent grandchildren’s relationships with
maternal and paternal grandmothers and grandfathers. Journal of Adolescence, 14(4), 373–387.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-1971(91)90005-C
Erben, M. (1991). Genealogy and sociology: A preliminary set of statements and
speculations. Sociology, 25(2), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038591025002008
Flack, C. (1986). Looking up the family tree. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 9(5), 17–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107621758600900505
Hart, D. (2018). Other ways of knowing: The intersection of education when researching
family roots. Genealogy, 2(2), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy2020018
Hershkovitz, Arnon, & Hardof-Jaffe, S. (2017). Genealogy as a lifelong learning endeavor.
Leisure/ Loisir. https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2017.1399817
Hershkovitz, Arnon. (2012). The Internet is changing genealogy - again. APG Quarterly, 27(4),
187–192.
Hershkovitz, Arnon (2012). A suggested taxonomy of genealogy as a multidisciplinary
academic research field. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 4(3), 5–21.
Hickey, M. G. (1999). Bringing history home: Local and family history projects for grades
K-6. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Howard, G. R. (2014). We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers, multiracial
schools (3rd edition). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=et6cDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=can+te
achers+teach+what+they+don%27t+know&ots=HA-
bZL6V60&sig=ibsXDcfacX8hTzNDXQAw_H0LkRY#v=onepage&q&f=false
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the
literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733
Kramer, A. M. (2011a). Kinship, affinity and connectedness: Exploring the role of
genealogy in personal lives. Sociology, 45(3), 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0038038511399622
Kramer, A. M. (2011b). Mediatizing memory: History, affect and identity in who do you
think you are? European Journal of Cultural Studies, 14(4), 428–445.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549411404616
Lambert, R. D. (1996). The Family Historian and Temporal Orientations Towards the
Ancestral Past. Time & Society, 5(2), 115–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X96005002001
Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J., & Boss, S. (2015). Setting the standard for project based
learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/LarmerBook.
LeBlanc, M., LeBlanc, M., Furlong, C., Leger, M. T., & Freiman, V. (2018). Digital
citizenship in a global context: The relationships between young people and the digital world, the
actions they take and the ssues associated with those actions. In Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2018, pp. 363–371). New
Orleans, LA. Retrieved from https://www-learntechlib-org.cupdx.idm.oclc.org/p/182550/
Li, J., Snow, C., & White, C. (2015). Teen culture, technology and literacy instruction:
Urban adolescent students’ perspectives. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON GENEALOGY AND THE SCIENCES
46
Revue Canadienne de l’apprentissage et de La Technologie, 41(3). https://doi.org/
10.21432/t2004h
Nash, C. (2002). Genealogical identities. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,
20(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1068/d314
Parker, J. C. (1990). Local history and genealogy in the classroom: Without cooperation
between teachers and librarians, research assignments risk failure. The History Teacher, 23(4),
375. https://doi.org/10.2307/494393
Rapoport, A. (2010). We cannot teach what we don’t know: Indiana teachers talk about
global citizenship education. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 5(3), 179–190.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197910382256
Reiser, M. L. (2012). Exploring genealogical roots and family history and their influence
on college student development: A qualitative study (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Brigham
Young University (Provo, UT). Retrieved from https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd
Roberto, K. A., & Stroes, J. (1992). Grandchildren and Grandparents: Roles, Influences,
and Relationships. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 34(3), 227–239.
https://doi.org/10.2190/8CW7-91WF-E5QC-5UFN
Schechtman, J. B. (1952). The Arab refugee problem. New York, NY: Philosophical
Library. https://doi.org/10.2307/442186
Shapira, A. (2003). Yehudim Hadashim Yehudim Yeshanim (New Jews old Jews)
[Hebrew]. Tel Aviv Irsael: Am Oved.
Sitton, T., & Goodwin, D. (1986). Bringing history home: Classroom project ideas for the
Texas sesquicentennial.
van Broekhuizen, L. (2016). The paradox of classroom technology: Despite proliferation and
access, students not using technology for learning. Alpharetta, GA. Retrieved from www.advanc-
ed.org
Veale, K. (2004). Discussing our family trees: A longitudinal analysis of online,
community-based communication in genealogical newsgroups. Interface: The Journal for
Education, Community and Values, 4(4). Retrieved from http://bcis.pacificu.edu/interface/?
p=2970
Wajnryb, R. (1999). The holocaust as unspeakable: Public ritual versus private hell. Journal of
Intercultural Studies, 20(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.1999.9963472