Teaching Unseen Students: The Online Challenges for an American Holocaust Course

  • Jeffrey KleimanEmail author
Part of the Holocaust Education – Historisches Lernen – Menschenrechtsbildung book series (HEM)


Die starke Zunahme von Online-Kursen in den USA zwingt praktisch jede Disziplin dazu entsprechende Angebote zu machen. Mehr als fünf Millionen Schülerinnen und Schüler, etwa 28 % aller Schülerinnen und Schüler, die ein amerikanisches College oder eine amerikanische Universität besuchen, nehmen an Online-Kursen teil. Für diejenigen, die mit Online-Kursen nicht zu Recht kommen, werden anrechnungsfähige Kurse von akkreditierten Institutionen angeboten. Die Schülerinnen und Schüler nehmen in der Regel von zu Hause aus über einen PC teil. Selten finden „Echtzeit“-Gespräche statt, stattdessen ist die Arbeit weitgehend „asynchron“, das bedeutet, dass es eine gemeinsame Abgabefrist für Aufgaben gibt, aber keine regelmäßigen Besprechungszeiten.

Online-Bildung ermöglicht es Schulen, eine große Angebotsvielfalt für die diversesten Zielgruppen zu schaffen. Inhalt und pädagogische Modi müssen sich an diese neue Umgebung anpassen, um diesen diversen Zielgruppen einen guten Service zu bieten. Die Erstellung eines Kurses über den Holocaust kann dabei eine besondere Herausforderung darstellen.


The explosion of online courses in the United States means that virtually every discipline ends up in this format at some university level. Begun as an effort to increase enrollments (and revenue), American colleges and universities have shifted their sights to a wider range of students. More than five million students, approximately 28% of all students attending an American college or university, enroll in online classes. For those unfamiliar with the online approach, credit-bearing courses from accredited institutions become an option without ever entering a classroom. Students usually participate from home via personal computer. Rarely do “real time” conversations take place; instead, work is largely “asynchronous”, a term that signifies a shared deadline for assignments, but no regular meeting times.

Online education allows schools to move beyond the traditional students to open opportunities for many more of diverse backgrounds. It also spreads enrollment options far beyond the physical campus’s presence to people who are “place bound”; this is to say, adults who are raising families while working or living remotely. Content and pedagogical modes must conform to this new environment to serve these students well. While many courses in the humanities and social sciences face these constraints, creating a Holocaust course can be especially challenging.


  1. Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eva M. Bures, E. Borkhovski and Rana M. Tamim. 2011. Interaction in distrance education and online learning: Using Evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing and Higher Education 23 (82): 82–103 Accessed 23 June 2018.
  2. Ackerman, Rakefet, and Morris Goldsmith. 2011. Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied 17 (1): 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, I. Elaine and Jeff Seaman. 2016. Online report card—Tracking online education in the United States. The Sloan Consortium (January 2016). Accessed 28 June 2018.
  4. Ben-Peretz, Miriam. 2003. Identifying with horror: A response to Simone Schweber’s “Simulating Survival”. Curriculum Inquiry 33 (2): 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coyne, James C. 2011. September 11, 2001: Did Americans suffer virtual trauma from television coverage. Accessed 26 June 2018.
  6. Dillon, Andrew. 1992. Reading from paper versus screen: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics 35 (10): 1297–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jabr, Ferris. 2013. The reading brain in the digital age: The science of paper versus screens. Scientific American. Accessed 4 Juli 2017.
  8. Jacoby, Oren, dir. 2007. Constantine’s Sword. Storeyvillefilms.Google Scholar
  9. Malaga, Ross A. 2017. A comparison of video formats for online teaching. Contemporary Issues in Education Research 10 (1): 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Myberg, Caroline, and Ninna Wiberg. 2015. Screen versus paper: What is the difference for reading and learning. Insights 28 (2): 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nielsen, Jakob. 2006. F-Shaped pattern for reading web content. Accessed 6 June 2017.
  12. Noyes, Jan M. and Kate J. Garland. 2008. Computer- versus paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent. Ergonomics 51 (9): 1325–1375.Google Scholar
  13. Noyes, Jan M., and Kate J. Garland. 2003. VDT versus paper-based text: Reply to Mayes, Sims, and Koonce. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31 (6): 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Payne, Stephen J. and William R. Reader. 2006. Constructing structure maps of multiple online texts. The International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64 (5): 461–474. Accessed 25 June 2018.
  15. Rosen, Christine. 2008. People of the screen in the new Atlantis. A Journal of Technology and Society (Fall issue):20–32.Google Scholar
  16. Schoen, Doug. 2018. Encouraging findings from the 2018 Holocaust knowledge and awareness study. Forbes (17 April 2018) The complete report can be found at Accessed 27 June 2018.
  17. Schweber, Simone. 2006. “Holocaust Fatigue” in teaching today. Social Education 70 (1): 44–49.Google Scholar
  18. Schweber, Simone. 2003a. Simulating survival. Curriculum Inquiry 33 (2): 139–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schweber, Simone. 2003b. Rejoinder to Miriam Ben-Peretz. Curriculum Inquiry 33 (2). Accessed 23 June 2018.
  20. Sereny, Gitta. 1974. Into that darkness: An examination of conscience. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  21. Waestlund, Erik. 2007. Experimental studies of human-computer interaction: Working memory and mental workload in complex cognition, Ph.D. dissertation, Goeteborg University. Accessed 25 June 2018.
  22. Wayne, Teddy. 2016. The Trauma of violent news on the internet. New York Times, 11 September 2016, ST2.Google Scholar
  23. Weinrich, Harald, Hartmut Obendorf, Eelco Herder and Matthias Mayer. 2008. Not quite average: An empirical study of web use. ACM Transactions on the Web 2 (1): 133–142. Accessed 29 June 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MarshfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations