Teaching History Through Entertainment: the Pedagogy of Who Do You Think You Are?

Ava Laure Parsemain Teaching history through entertainment: the pedagogy of Who Do You Think You Are?

Abstract: Who Do You Think You Are? is a documentary series about history in which celebrities go on a journey to retrace their family tree and to learn about their Ava Laure Parsemain ancestry. Originally broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in the Teaching history through entertainment United Kingdom, it has been adapted in sixteen other countries, including Australia. 07 The Australian version of the franchise has been broadcast since 2008 on the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), a public service channel whose stated purpose is to “provide multilingual and multicultural radio, television and digital media services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians”. This article investigates the Australian version of Who Do You Think You Are? as an educational text, which teaches history by exploring a range of eras and historical events through the celebrities’ genealogical investigations. Based on interviews with the producers and textual analysis, it explores the series’ pedagogy and demonstrates that Who Do You Think You Are? aims to teach history through entertainment. It shows how entertainment elements like storytelling and emotions are used as pedagogical tools, and how this “edutainment” model influences the historical and historiographical lessons taught in and by the text. Thus, this article highlights the intrinsic connection between televisual pedagogy (how a programme teaches) and educational content (what it teaches). It is argued that by adopting an edutainment model – and, more specifically, by using storytelling and emotions as pedagogical tools – Who Do You Think You Are? promotes a particular conception of history and of “doing” history, which involves active investigation and personal memories.

Introduction Who Do You Think You Are? is a documentary series about genealogy in which celebrities go on a journey to discover their family history and trace their family tree. Originally broadcast by the BBC in the United Kingdom, it has been adapted in Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Rus- sia, South Africa, Sweden and the United States. Using the Australian version of the franchise as a case study, this article analyses Who Do You Think You Are? as an educational text that teaches history through the celebrities’ genealogical investigations. Based on semi-structured interviews conducted with two producers (referred to as “Producer 1” and “Producer 2”) and a programmer working for the public service channel SBS (identified as “SBS Programmer”) as well as a textual analysis of the fifth series, it examines the series’ pedagogical tools and techniques to explain how the programme

Die Online-Ausgabe dieser Publikation ist Open Access verfügbar und im Rahmen der Creative CommonsLizenz CC-BY wiederverwendbar. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

© 2017 Ava Laure Parsemain https://doi.org/10.3726/spiel.2017.01.07 110 Ava Laure Parsemain teaches. How do the producers and the text teach history? By what means do they invite viewers to learn? Like most documentaries, Who Do You Think You Are? aims to inform and explain and uses certain textual features to persuade viewers that it accu- rately represents the historical world (Nichols 2001; Parsemain 2015; Renov 1993). Some sequences draw upon the codes and conventions of what Nichols calls the “expository documentary” in order to emphasise objectivity and omniscience. For example, as in most expository documentaries, objectivity and omniscience are often signified by a so-called “Voice-of- God” commentary directly addressing the viewer. In these sequences, the history lesson is delivered through the narrator’s spoken words. The images and the editing are subordinate to the spoken commentary, only providing visual support to the claims made by the narrator. The series also uses the codes and conventions of the “observational documentary” to give the impression that it spontaneously and faithfully records actual events “as they happen”, thus signifying actuality and authenticity. In such observational scenes, social actors engage with one another without acknowledging the camera’s presence, while natural sounds, natural light or a shaky hand-held camera connote the unprepared, unrehearsed record- ing of real life. These generic conventions of the documentary can be read as pedagogical tools used to persuade viewers that what they see and what they hear is an authentic, accurate and reliable source of knowledge about the historical world. But the programme does not only rely on the codes and conventions of the documentary to educate: it also brings into play entertainment techniques to teach history. Indeed, the series adopts an “edutainment” approach,1 draw- ing upon entertainment elements like celebrities, storytelling, empathy and emotions to engage viewers in the learning process. Although it contradicts some enduring assumptions about the separation between education and entertainment, the idea that television can entertain to teach has long been envisaged by media professionals and scholars (Briggs 1995; Hinds 1991). Edutainment as a pedagogical strategy was formally theorised in the 1970s, and has been applied since by producers of entertainment-education television in the United Kingdom, Mexico, Kenya and India (Klein 2011, 2013; Sin- ghal & Rogers 2002; Singhal, Rogers, & Brown 1993). Entertainment genres like soap operas, telenovelas or dramas and entertainment elements such as celebrities, storytelling and emotions can be used as pedagogical tools because audience members who are entertained are more engaged and attentive (Bry- ant & Vorderer 2006; Vorderer 2001; Wirth 2006). As Vorderer explains:

1 “Edutainment” can be defined as the combination of education and entertainment.

Media users who feel entertained are more interested, more attentive, and therefore more eager to select, follow, and to process the information given by a program than those who are not […] In fact, entertainment appears more and more to be a crucial condition for successful information processing. (Vorderer 2001, 250) This article shows how entertainment can be used as a pedagogical tool to teach history, and how this edutainment model influences the kind of historical and historiographical lessons taught by television. By adopting an edutainment model – and, more specifically, by using storytelling and emotions as pedagogical tools – Who Do You Think You Are? promotes a particular conception of history and of “doing” history, which are based on active and experiential learning, investigation, and on the personal memories of ordinary people. Thus, this study reveals the intrinsic link between televisual pedagogy (how television teaches) and educational content (what it teaches).

Teaching history Who Do You Think You Are? aims to educate viewers about a wide range of historical events and eras. As the description on the back of the DVD cover explains, in the fifth series: We meet a fifteenth century Maltese medieval magnate and a seventeenth century British Royal musician. We learn about harrowing tales of Australian nineteenth century mental asylums and child mortality, through to twentieth century Hun- garian Cold War politics and families separated by war and racism. We meet bushrangers, artists and soldiers; people who left their mark on Australia and their descendants. (SBS 2013) The fifth series delves into a range of historical topics including King George IV of England and the evolution of music instruments during his reign, nineteenth century child mortality in Europe, the transport industry in Australia during the nineteenth century, the First and Second World Wars, cooperative farms, propaganda, and protests against the Communist governments after the annexation of Easter European states by the Soviet Union, the cultural assimilation of migrants in Australia after the Second World War and the history of mental health treatment. But the educational content of Who Do You Think You Are? is not lim- ited to history lessons. Through history, the series addresses questions of individual and collective identity, as the historical investigation allows the celebrities to connect with their family members and heritage. Further, this notion of identity goes beyond individuals’ family histories to include national heritage (Parsemain 2016). By “reminding” Australians where they came from, that is, who their ancestors were and how they lived, the series teaches Australian identity, thus participating in the construction of what

Die Online-Ausgabe dieser Publikation ist Open Access verfügbar und im Rahmen der Creative CommonsLizenz CC-BY wiederverwendbar. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 112 Ava Laure Parsemain

Anderson (1983) calls an “imagined community”. Australianness is connoted by the celebrities (who are famous or iconic Australians) and by some of the backgrounds and settings. Moreover, the programme highlights Australia’s past by exploring topics such as convicts and the British colonies, conflicts between White settlers and Aboriginal peoples over land ownership, the role of Australian soldiers during the First World War, the White Australia policy etc. After learning that his ancestors were convicts, the actor Lex Marinos says that he is proud of this heritage because it is “quintessentially what Aus- tralia is about” (Pavlou [Director], 2013), thus underlining the link between collective history and identity. For the producers, teaching history is also a way to show audiences that cultural diversity is a fundamental part of the Australian identity. This is in alignment with one of SBS’ educational objectives, which is to “increase awareness of the contribution of a diversity of cultures to the continuing development of Australian society” (SBS.com.au). On its official website, the series is described as follows: Considering Australia’s multicultural background, this is a global story, with each celebrity tracing their ancestors around the world. They travel to the places where their forebears would have lived, loved and died, and learn about the hardships and hurdles their ancestors overcame. This is a fascinating chroni- cle of the social, ethnic and cultural evolution of Australia’s national identity. (Artemisfilms.com) A close reading of the text confirms that it aims to educate about multiculturalism through history. For example, the famous Australians who participate in the programme often mention their multicultural identity: in the first episode, the comedian Adam Hills mentions his migrant background while in another epiosde, the actor Don Hany speaks about his Iraqi and Hungarian heritage. Similarly, Marinos discusses his Greek identity: "for me, in terms of identity, I define myself as Greek Australian. I'm born in Australia, I've grown up in Australia, but I come from Greek heritage. That's the culture that I identify with” (Pavlou [Director] 2013). Therefore, exploring Austral- ians’ cultural heritages involves learning about migrants and the history of other countries. In the first three episodes of the fifth series, the celebrities travel overseas to investigate their family history: Hills to Czech Republic and Malta, Hany to Hungary, and the actress Asher Keddie to the United Kingdom. By underlining the multicultural dimension of Australia’s heritage, Who Do You Think You Are? aims to inform and educate viewers about other countries’ cultures and histories, and to teach that diversity is a fundamental component of Australian identity. Although the fifth series does not feature any Aboriginal celebrity, the programme has explored Aboriginal history in episodes from the first, fourth and sixth series.

In regard to multiculturalism, the series’ repetitive and episodic structure contributes to its pedagogy. It is through the assemblage of different historical journeys and cultural heritages that Who Do You Think You Are? “works through” multiculturalism (Ellis 2000). The programme does not only educate about multiculturalism in individual episodes but also through the accumulation of episodes: it is by juxtaposing stories about different backgrounds and cultures across episodes that it is able to represent Australia as a multicultural patchwork. As Ellis (1992) points out, this repetitive and episodic structure distinguishes televisual narratives from cinematic narratives. This is significant because it highlights an aspect of televisual pedagogy that is unique to television (and possibly other serialised forms of media).

Teaching history through storytelling The producers and programmer interviewed for this study say that they consciously aim to educate viewers about history, identity and multiculturalism; however, they see themselves as edutainers rather than educators. They work under the assumption that education and entertainment are "not mutually exclusive” (Producer 1) and, more importantly, that they can be efficiently combined to create “entertaining information” (Producer 1): I think what shows like Who Do You Think You Are? are doing, which is really special, is grabbing from that tune box that is entertainment but putting it in the context of facts and research. (Producer 2) When asked how the programme teaches, both producers emphasise aspects of teaching that distinguish their pedagogy from book-learning and formal classroom-based pedagogy. They claim that the programme’s lessons are shorter, easier, more compelling and more enjoyable than school lessons: “people enjoy learning about history in bite-size pieces; it’s not a demand- ing history lesson” (Producer 2). They also believe that its pedagogy is more personal than traditional book-learning or school-based pedagogy: “this is an easy way and an interesting way to digest Australian and some overseas history, because it’s personalised through that celebrity’s journey” (Producer 1). For them, teaching primarily means engaging viewers through entertainment. This is clearly articulated by the SBS programmer: “it’s important for us to have interesting and engaging programmes […] I think education comes if it’s interesting. And again it’s that whole thing about how do you engage someone? Education is about engaging”. Like the programmer, both producers use the words “engage”, “engaging” or “engaged” repeatedly to explain how they teach. When asked about his pedagogical techniques and tools, Producer 1 explains: “we use techniques that are worked-out well beforehand. And hopefully when people watch the programme they’re not

Die Online-Ausgabe dieser Publikation ist Open Access verfügbar und im Rahmen der Creative CommonsLizenz CC-BY wiederverwendbar. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 114 Ava Laure Parsemain actually seeing all of the things behind the programme. They’re so engaged in the programme that that’s what carries them along”. From the producers’ and the programmer’s perspective, education, engagement and entertainment are all intertwined, and together constitute the foundation of televisual pedagogy. One specific entertainment technique that the producers use as a pedagogical tool is storytelling. Both producers consider that stories are particularly useful to teach history. Producer 1 explains that they “like making history programmes and […] making a broad range of programmes about history and telling our own Australian stories”. Here, the link between history and storytelling is explicit. As the quote indicates, teaching history goes beyond delivering facts: it involves “telling stories”, in a way that is entertaining and engaging. As Kozloff (1992, 68) observes in “Narrative Theory and Televi- sion”, stories are omnipresent in television, even in programmes and in genres that are not primarily designed to entertain: “programs that are not ostensi- bly fictional entertainments, but rather have other goals such as description, education, or argumentation, tend to use narrative as a means to their ends”. The producers of Who Do You Think You Are? use various narrative devices to create suspense, curiosity, excitement and thrill because they as- sume that these enjoyable feelings increase engagement, attention and interest, thus facilitating viewers’ learning. Storytelling therefore functions both as entertainment element and pedagogical device. As Producer 1 explains, the historical lessons in the programme are never simply “delivered”, but are always wrapped up in narratives, which are consciously and meticulously crafted during the production process: The way the programme is constructed, it’s like a detective journey. So, you know, the well-worn path to creating interest in people, from books, through movies, through television programmes. Going on a journey and a detective experience, uncovering things as you go along is of interest to people […] So we actually contrive it in a way that they learn that bit of information, which then leads them to that bit of information, which then leads them… So it’s a stepping stone technique in a way, and it’s carefully constructed so that hopefully you’ll get some emotional response at particular points. And the information just keeps building as you go along. So by the time you get to the end of the story, there might be one or two key questions that have been answered. (Producer 1) Producer 1 refers to the fact that each episode is presented in the form of a story, that is, as a series of events connected in a cause and effect order. In the series, these sequential events are the discoveries made by the celebrities about their ancestors. Each episode follows a similar narrative structure, starting with a question and ending with a resolution: Usually we have the reason, the motivation for the person going on the journey, you know [for example] ‘do I come from a musical family? I’ve always wanted to know, where did that come from? Do I have musical ancestors or is that just

something that’s come up with me? None of my brothers and sisters is musical and my parents aren’t really musical but I am, so where did that come from?’ That might be the motivation for somebody. So they’ll go on that journey and probably somewhere along the line, they’ll discover ‘oh my great-great-great- grandfather was a famous singer, or a famous actor’ or whatever it is. So we try to get answers to their motivation for going on the journey. (Producer 1) These initial questions, which set up the narrative, are consciously devised by the producers to arouse viewers’ curiosity and create engagement with the story. Who Do You Think You Are? can therefore be described as an episodic series (each episode is a self-contained story) that uses the detective story narrative formula as a pedagogical tool: each episode opens with a mystery (about the celebrity’s ancestry and one of their personality traits), which is investigated and solved by the end. In addition, the programme uses other narrative devices to build dramatic tension. For example, the narrator often creates an effect of suspense at the end of a sequence by asking questions such as “what happened? Did the family stay together?” (Vines [Director] 2013) or “but what else remains hidden along that branch of the family tree?” (Pavlou [Director] 2013). As Kozloff (1992, 74) notes, televisual narratives build suspense and tension by prompt- ing series of questions and “as soon as one question is answered, another, seeming equally critical takes its place”. The narrator also creates suspense by foreshadowing what will happen next in the story: “but there was still one remarkable twist in store”; “by looking into Violet’s life, Asher will discover uncanny parallels to her own” (Peddie [Director], 2013); “Susie is about to find out another family secret, and another ancestor whose legacy will stay with her forever” (Wilkins [Director] 2013). These questions and clues are usually followed by a fade-out transition that marks a narrative break, thus reinforcing the suspense by creating a (short) cliff-hanger effect. These pauses normally coincide with advertisement breaks: as in many television narratives, the text is tailored “to fit naturally around commercial breaks […] shows build their stories to a high point of interest before each break to ensure that the audience will stay tuned” (Kozloff 1992, 90). From a narrative perspective, Who Do You Think You Are? is therefore comparable to episodic series like crime/detective programmes and action programmes, which “break down into a series of clinches whose motivation is provided by a narrative enigma (a mystery)” (Ellis 1992, 152). As in most episodic detective or crime series, the mystery is resolved at the end of each episode, but there is no narrative development across the series. The same problematic (the celebrity’s identity quest) is repeated in every new episode: as Ellis writes, “the basic problematic of the series […] is itself a stable state” (Ellis 1992, 156).

Die Online-Ausgabe dieser Publikation ist Open Access verfügbar und im Rahmen der Creative CommonsLizenz CC-BY wiederverwendbar. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 116 Ava Laure Parsemain

It is also worth noting that the use of storytelling and of the detective narrative formula as pedagogical tools influences the historiographical lessons taught by the series. The representation of learning as detective investigation suggests that gaining historical knowledge is a fundamentally active and experiential process. In the series, learning always means actively investigating. The celebrity, who performs both as learner and as detective, is never taught in a transmissive or didactic manner, but always learns by doing: they investigate, explore, travel, search, research, examine and study (Parsemain 2016). Thus, learning history is not presented as a passive or purely cognitive event cut out from the external world. In Who Do You Think You Are?, learning history always means doing history: it is an experiential process that occurs through action and interaction with the environment.

Teaching history through emotions In addition to storytelling, the producers consider that encouraging viewers’ empathy and emotions is one of their main pedagogical techniques. According to Producer 1, “television is an emotional medium. That’s what it should be for […] And if you’re emotionally engaged in anything, you’re going to learn something”. Producer 2 agrees: There are lots of programmes on television where you can learn about history. I think what’s so powerful about this show is that it has a very strong emotional arc. The storytelling is absolutely rooted in it being a personal, emotional journey, and that’s what audiences connect with. Producer 2, who draws on their past experience as high school teacher to produce the programme,2 believes that learning requires “connecting to the subject matter on not just an intellectual level”, and teaching means tapping into the viewers’ emotional and somatic responses: I came very much to the television medium through the intellectual prism and I learnt the hard way that you can’t just deal in ideas, in the medium that is television. You have to actually engage in many ways […] That visceral response is something is that I knew in the classroom, when I was teaching kids literature. The producers explicitly link emotional engagement to empathy, which is the ability to feel with, or feel for another individual (Zillmann 1995; 2006). As communication studies show, empathy with media personae increases emotional engagement and entertainment, whereas indifference decreases those feelings:

2 The pronoun “they” is used here in a singular sense. The gendered pronouns “he” or “she” are avoided to maintain the identity of the interviewees confidential.

The better these affective dispositions are developed by dramatic events, the stronger will be the emotional involvement with the dramatic presentation […] Ultimately, the more the respondents are emotionally touched and taken in by dramatic events, the more likely it is that they will appraise, in retrospect, the drama experience as positive and enlightening. (Zillmann 2006, 48) The producers invite empathic engagement in two ways: they encourage viewers to share the emotions and experiences of people who lived in the past, and to share the emotions of the celebrities who participate in the programme. The inherent link between empathy, emotional engagement and enjoyment is formulated by Producer 1: When they watch somebody connecting to their family, it’s such a strong emotional pull, that I think people actually enjoy that, even though it’s not them. It’s vicarious! […] They definitely get the emotional…I mean, we do screenings all the time, and people are in tears and laughing. So they definitely identify with the person going on the journey and they sort of share that emotional journey, as you do in dramas and in any other television that works on an emotional level. For the celebrity and for the viewer watching the programme, learning history is indeed an emotional experience. The genealogical investigation is not presented as a purely cognitive process, but as a physical and emotional experience. The pedagogical journey takes the celebrity’s body to the loca- tions where their ancestors lived, which become experiential sites of learning. Learning involves being physically present in those spaces, touching material artefacts that belonged to (or are somehow linked to) their ancestors, and experiencing strong emotions. Emotions are depicted in every episode: when learning about their family history, the celebrities often cry, laugh and smile.

Pic 1: Learning history as an emotional and embodied experience: Don Hany

Die Online-Ausgabe dieser Publikation ist Open Access verfügbar und im Rahmen der Creative CommonsLizenz CC-BY wiederverwendbar. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 118 Ava Laure Parsemain

Pic 2: Learning history as an emotional and embodied experience: Susie Porter

This illustrates a crucial link between pedagogy and educational content, that is, between how one learns and what is being taught. It is because they are learning about family histories and about individuals’ personal, intimate and emotional experiences that the celebrities (and the viewer) learn through emotions. In other words, the pedagogical technique of encouraging emotions (the how) is linked to the nature and content of the history lessons taught in the programme (the what). Indeed, the history lessons in Who Do You Think You Are? focus primarily on how individuals felt and how they experienced the past, rather than facts about major political events. As Producer 2 explains:

You can learn a lot of dates, and you can pass a test, just on knowing, you know, for example, the year that the Blue Mountains were first crossed or the Magna Carta was signed. But what Who Do You Think You Are? does is that it takes you on a journey where you get to really feel the experiences of those people who were fighting the battle or climbing the mast.

Thus, the producers not only aim to teach through emotions, but also about individuals’ emotional experiences. Although it also teaches facts about major socio-political events, the series’ main educational goal is to teach “emotional history” by exploring individuals’ and families’ private memories and their personal and intimate experiences of the past. This emotional approach of history has been praised by historians like Curthoys (2013) who claims that one of the pedagogical strengths of pro-

Die Online-Ausgabe dieser Publikation ist Open Access verfügbar und im Rahmen der Creative CommonsLizenz CC-BY wiederverwendbar. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Teaching history through entertainment 119 grammes like Who Do You Think You Are? is to combine what she calls “men’s history”, which is the history of major socio-political events, and “women’s history”, which she describes as the emotional history of families and relationships. This is exemplified by a storyline from the third episode of the fifth series, which explains historical events through the example of Don Hany’s Hungarian grandparents. At one point, Hany discovers that his grandfather asked the Communist Party’s local committee to investigate his wife’s alleged infidelity. In one sequence, a black and white montage of archival films shows a series of post-war weddings while the narrator’s voiceover explains:

With religion now banned throughout the Eastern bloc, it was the Communist Party that became the arbiter of all morals and values. In the new Hungary, private lives were public property. The aim was to mould traditionally Catholic Hungarians into model socialist citizens. And it was up to party officials like Jozsef to set a good example. (Bare [Director] 2013)

Here, the programme interweaves a particular family history (Hany’s grandparents’ story) with broader political history. His grandparents’ private lives are both the object of the history lesson and the example through which broader history lessons are taught. These broader lessons do not focus ex- clusively on major political events (like the annexation of Hungary by the Soviet Union): they also aim to educate about the history of families and relationships, by showing how major political events affected people in their everyday, private and personal lives – that is, how they affected moral values, marriages, relationships etc. By focusing on the personal history of families, Who Do You Think You Are? suggests that history is not only about major political events and facts and that it can (and should) focus on a more direct, personal and emotional experience of the past. This emphasis on the personal and emotional dimension of history concerns what the learners learn, how they learn and, sometimes who teaches. The role of teacher is at times performed by ordinary people who have a direct experience of the past. Unlike experts and historians who teach based on the intellectual knowledge that they have acquired through formal education, these direct witnesses teach based on their own personal memories. By depicting direct witnesses as history teachers, the series suggests that history is not only a matter of factual, intellectual knoweldge: to teach and learn history – to do history – means exploring the personal and emotional memories of ordinary people who have a direct experience of the past.

Die Online-Ausgabe dieser Publikation ist Open Access verfügbar und im Rahmen der Creative CommonsLizenz CC-BY wiederverwendbar. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 120 Ava Laure Parsemain

Pic 3: Witnesses as teachers: war veteran Arthur Leggett teaching Rove MacManus about WW1

Conclusion The goal of educating and entertaining audiences are often perceived as dis- tinct and separate because of the assumption that some media texts promote knowledge while others provide enjoyment. This binarism between media education and media entertainment has long pervaded professional, insti- tutional, academic and popular discourses about broadcasting (Gray 2008; Hinds 1991; Klein 2011, 2013). For example, in his seminal book Television, Technology and Cultural Form, Williams (1975) contrasts genres that educate (news, current affairs, documentaries, education, arts, children’s programmes) and those that entertain (drama, movies and light entertainment). Adopting a more critical and pessimistic stance, Postman (1985) argues that the growing importance of entertainment media and its merging with news would lead to the weakening of serious information. More recently, media companies and institutions like the Office of Communications (Ofcom), a regulatory body for the media industry in the United Kingdom, have continued to circulate narrow conceptions of what constitutes information, education and entertainment on television (Klein 2011). Edutainment programmes like Who Do You Think You Are? challenge this binary view by using entertainment techniques as pedagogical tools. For the programme makers, teaching history means engaging audiences by entertaining them though celebrities, stories, empathy and emotion. Online comments and discussion groups conducted with viewers as part of this study confirm that audience members feel that they learn if and when they enjoy

Die Online-Ausgabe dieser Publikation ist Open Access verfügbar und im Rahmen der Creative CommonsLizenz CC-BY wiederverwendbar. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Teaching history through entertainment 121 watching the programme, and through entertainment responses such as emotional involvement, empathy, identification, parasocial interactions with the celebrities and feelings of curiosity, excitement and thrill. This case study of Who Do You Think You Are? is therefore in alignment with recent research conducted by communication scholars that distinguishes hedonistic and eudaimonic entertainment (Bartsch & Schneider 2014; Oliver & Raney 2014). Hedonistic entertainment centres on pleasure, fun and escapism and does not lead to deep learning. Eudaimonic entertainment, however, is a higher form of intellectual delight, which is linked to enlightenment, insight and reflection. Who Do You Think You Are? shows that televisual entertainment can be a form of eudaimonic entertainment and that it can facilitate learning. Furthermore, this study highlights the inherent link between pedagogy and educational content, that is, between how one teaches and what is being taught. The central role that emotions play in the programme, for example, concerns both its pedagogy (how it teaches) and its educational content (the nature and content of its history lessons and the kind of history that it teaches). The learners (that is, the celebrities who participate in the programme and the viewers watching it) learn through empathy and emotions because the lessons concern individuals’ private lives, and their personal and intimate experiences of the past. Instead of simply providing facts about major political events, the history lessons aim to show how some individuals felt and how they experienced the past, emphasising their everyday lives and personal memories. Teaching and learning history are thus presented not as disembodied, rational or purely intellectual activities, but as a deeply personal and emotional practice. “Doing” history is also depicted as an essentially active investigation, in- volving not only emotionality but physicality and action. The learner is never represented as a passive recipient of knowledge, but as a detective, actively contributing to his/her own learning. Thus, the programme not only adopts an edutainment approach, but also aligns with what educational scholars call constructivist and experiential pedagogy, which assumes that learning is active and that teaching is interactive rather than authoritative and transmissive (Bruner 1966; Kolb 1984; Ramsden 2003).

Bibliography Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London, UK. Artemisfilms.com. Who Do You Think You Are? Series 4. Retrieved from http://www.artemisfilms.com/productions/who-do-you-think-you-are- series-4, Accessed 15/05/2016

Die Online-Ausgabe dieser Publikation ist Open Access verfügbar und im Rahmen der Creative CommonsLizenz CC-BY wiederverwendbar. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 122 Ava Laure Parsemain

Bartsch, A., & Schneider, F. M. (2014). Entertainment and Politics Revisited: How Non-Escapist Forms of Entertainment Can Stimulate Political Interest and Information Seeking. In: Journal of Communication, 64(3), 369–396. Briggs, A. (1995). The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Vol- ume I: The Birth of Broadcasting. London, UK. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA. Bryant, J., & Vorderer, P. (2006). Psychology of Entertainment. Mahwah, NJ. Curthoys, A. (2013). Keynote Address. Paper presented at Presenting the Past: A Symposium on History and the Media, Macquarie University, Sydney. Ellis, J. (1992). Visible Fictions: Cinema, Television, Video. London, UK. Ellis, J. (2000). Seeing things: Television in the Age of Uncertainty. London, UK. Gray, J. (2008). Television Entertainment. New York, NY. Hinds, L. (1991). Using Entertainment Television to Educate: A Case Study. In: The Journal of Popular Culture, 25(2), 117–126. Klein, B. (2011). Entertaining Ideas: Social Issues in Entertainment Television. In: Media Culture Society, 33(6), 905–921. Klein, B. (2013). Entertainment-Education for the Media-Saturated: Audience Perspectives on Social Issues in Entertainment Programming. In: European Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(1), 43–57. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learn- ing and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kozloff, S. (1992). Narrative Theory and Television. In: R. C. Allen (Ed.), Channels of Discourse, Reassembled: Television and Contemporary Criti- cism. Chapel Hill, NC, 67–100. Nichols, B. (2001). Introduction to Documentary, Second Edition. Bloom- ington, IN. Oliver, M. B., & Raney, A. A. (2014). An Introduction to the Special issue: Expanding the Boundaries of Entertainment Research. In: Journal of Com- munication, 64(3), 361–368. Parsemain, A. (2015). Crocodile tears? Authenticity in Televisual Pedagogy. In: M/C Journal, 18(1). Retrieved from http://journal.media-culture.org. au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/931, Accessed 15/04/2016 Parsemain, A. (2016). To Educate and Entertain: Representations of Learning in the Australian Version of Who Do You Think You Are? In: M. Readman (Ed.), Teaching and Learning on Screen: Mediated Pedagogies. London, UK. Postman, N. (1985). Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York, NY.

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2d ed.). Lon- don, UK. Renov, M. (1993). Theorizing Documentary. New York, NY. SBS.com.au. SBS Charter. Retrieved from http://www.sbs.com.au/aboutus/ corporate/index/id/25/h/SBS-Charter, Accessed 15/04/2016 Singhal, A., & Rogers, E. M. (2002). A Theoretical Agenda for Entertainment- Education. In: Communication Theory, 12(2), 117–135. Singhal, A., Rogers, E. M., & Brown, W. J. (1993). Harnessing the Potential of Entertainment-Education Telenovelas. In: International Communication Gazette, 51(1), 1–18. Vorderer, P. (2001). It's All Entertainment-Sure. But What Exactly Is Enter- tainment? Communication Research, Media Psychology, and the Explana- tion of Entertainment Experiences. In: Poetics, 29(4), 247–261. Williams, R. (1975). Television: Technology and Cultural Form. New York, NY. Wirth, W. (2006). Involvement. In J. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of Entertainment. Mahwah, NJ, 199–214. Zillmann, D. (1995). Mechanisms of Emotional Involvement with Drama. In: Poetics, 23(1–2), 33–51. Zillmann, D. (2006). Empathy: Affective Reactivity to Others' Emotional Experiences. In: J. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of Entertain- ment. Mahwah, NJ., 151–182.

Filmography Bare I. [Director]. (2013). Don Hany [Television Episode]. In C. Tait (Ed.), Who Do You Think You Are? Sydney, NSW: SBS. Pavlou K. [Director]. (2013). Lex Marinos [Television Episode]. In C. Tait (Ed.), Who Do You Think You Are? Sydney, NSW: SBS. Peddie S. [Director]. (2013). Asher Keddie [Television Episode]. In C. Tait (Ed.), Who Do You Think You Are? Sydney, NSW: SBS. SBS. (2013). Who Do You Think You Are? Series 5 [DVD]. Sydney, NSW: Celia Tait, Brian Beaton & Margie Bryant. Vines R. [Director]. (2013). Michael Caton [Television Episode]. In C. Tait (Ed.), Who Do You Think You Are? Sydney, NSW: SBS. Wilkins R. [Director]. (2013). Susie Porter [Television Episode]. In C. Tait (Ed.), Who Do You Think You Are? Sydney, NSW: SBS.

Die Online-Ausgabe dieser Publikation ist Open Access verfügbar und im Rahmen der Creative CommonsLizenz CC-BY wiederverwendbar. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 124 Ava Laure Parsemain

Dr. Ava Laure Parsemain The University of New South Wales, School of Arts and Media, Media Studies Sydney, NSW 2052 Australia

[email protected]

Die Online-Ausgabe dieser Publikation ist Open Access verfügbar und im Rahmen der Creative CommonsLizenz CC-BY wiederverwendbar. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0