Performance in Pedagogy: Ethical and Pedagogical
Dilemmas Shaping Virtual Survivor Testimony
Ian McGregor
University of Nevada, Reno
David Hicks
Virginia Tech University
Jeremy Stoddard
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Published: December 31, 2025
Corresponding Author:
Ian McGregor
imcgregor@unr.edu
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29173/assert90
Pages: 20-31
Distributed under Creative
Commons
Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0
International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
Copyright: Ownership of this article’s
copyright remains with the author(s),
subject to the Creative Commons
license.
ABSTRACT
Digital first-person testimonies have become increasingly more available and
utilized to engage students. However, with its increase, digital first-person
testimonies are facing significant ethical and pedagogical challenges,
especially within the field of Holocaust Education which has historically relied
on survivor testimony. With the era of living survivors rapidly coming to an end,
understanding the role of digital first-person testimonies within Holocaust
Education is paramount. This article summarizes the work of a larger empirical
study on the use of Virtual Interactive Holocaust Survivor Testimony (VIHST)
in place of live Holocaust survivor testimony at the National Holocaust Centre
and Museum (UK). The overview of the findings answers two research
questions concerning the implementation of VIHST at the National Holocaust
Centre and Museum (UK): 1) How do stakeholders perceive the value, utility,
and challenges of learning from and with VIHST? 2) What are the interactional
forces shaping pedagogical decisions around the use of VIHST in museums?
How to cite this article (APA): McGregor, I., Hicks, D., & Stoddard, J. (2025).
Performance in pedagogy: Ethical and pedagogical dilemmas shaping virtual
survivor testimony. Annals of Social Studies Research for Teachers, 7(2), 20-31.
https://doi.org/10.29173/assert90
Keywords: Holocaust education, digital testimony, historical memory, museum
education
McGregor et al. Performance in Pedagogy
21
INTRODUCTION
Digital first-person testimonies have become increasingly available and utilized to
engage students. However, digital first-person testimonies face significant ethical and
pedagogical challenges, especially within the field of Holocaust Education which has
historically relied on survivor testimony (Ballis, et. al., 2025; Marcus, et. al., 2021;
McGregor, et. al., 2022; Tirosh & Mikel-Arieli, 2023; Traum, et. al., 2015; Walden,
2021). With the era of living survivors rapidly coming to an end, understanding the
role of digital first-person testimonies is paramount. This article summarizes the work
of a larger empirical study on the use of Virtual Interactive Holocaust Survivor
Testimony (VIHST) in place of live Holocaust survivor testimony at the National
Holocaust Centre and Museum (UK).
THE RESEARCH
The Forever Project at the National Holocaust Centre and Museum (UK) was
developed in response to the decreasing availability of Holocaust survivors to
participate in the Centre’s educational programs. The Forever Project was created
using 3D recording technologies to capture the testimonies of 10 survivors. Students
visiting the Centre can now ‘experience’ a survivor’s testimony through a 3D digital
representation projected onto a screen. When the Forever Project is working as
intended, students speak into a microphone asking the 3D representation of the
survivor a question, speech recognition software then transcribes the question, and
then a nearest neighbor search software matches that question as closely as
possible with a 3D pre-recorded response to that question.
The overview of the findings below answers two research questions concerning the
implementation of VIHST at the National Holocaust Centre and Museum (UK):
1. How do stakeholders perceive the value, utility, and challenges of learning from and
with VIHST?
McGregor et al. Performance in Pedagogy
22
2. What are the interactional forces shaping pedagogical decisions around the use of
VIHST in museums?
Data were generated primarily through three methods: interviews with six staff
members and six survivors; observational data of the educational programs including
live survivor testimony and VIHST sessions with student groups; and focus group
interviews with student groups. Student groups visiting the Centre ranged from upper
primary grades to lower secondary grades from four schools. Through thematic
analysis of interview transcripts and observational data, we identified several key
findings related to student engagement, authenticity, and the ethical implications of
virtual testimony.
FINDINGS
Our research (Marcus, et. al., 2021) found that the stakeholders (museum staff and
leadership, visiting educators, students, survivors, etc.) grappled with several
pedagogical and ethical challenges in the implementation of VIHST resulting in
intended and unintended educational experiences. The biggest challenge revolved
around technological issues. Day-to-day obstacles, such as the technology simply not
working or the ‘survivor’ not answering a question or providing an inappropriate answer
to a student’s question, broke the illusion of interacting with a survivor. Moreover, the
museum staff’s presence became more front and center. Rather than their traditional
role which mostly encompassed introducing a live survivor and facilitating a Q&A
session, museum staff were forced to act more as stagehands to introduce the
technology, make it sound intriguing, explain why students will be listening to survivors,
organize the timing of the performance, pass out 3D glasses, and troubleshoot any
technological issues that arose. When the technology went awry, museum staff would
ad lib or stick to a preselected set of questions rather than allowing students to
generate their own questions organically. Furthermore, museum staff began
specializing in specific survivor testimonies so that they could be more prepared to
think on their feet as issues arose—across the ten virtual survivors, there were more
McGregor et al. Performance in Pedagogy
23
than 15,000 distinct answers to questions and museum staff were expected to be able
to know and anticipate questions and answers. In short, the goal of creating a plausible
and coherent illusion of an actual survivor was constantly broken. Similarly, students
expressed skepticism about the technology, questioning whether the responses were
"real" or "scripted" despite evidence showing students demonstrate empathy and
historical thinking skills after viewing the digital testimony.
Museum staff also faced several ethical dilemmas. The first was selecting which
survivors that worked with the National Holocaust Centre and Museum (UK) would be
recorded. Museum staff chose the ten survivors based on a variety of factors
including the survivors’ performance and personal appeal with audiences, the
compelling nature of the testimony, background variables such as the perspective
range of the testimony, the context, the nationality of the survivor, and their gender,
first language, and health. The range of the selected survivors was also meant to be
appropriate for younger and older students. However, given the personal
relationships museum staff had built with the survivors over many years of working
together, they struggled with not showing bias despite the robust criteria they
created. A more complex ethical dilemma facing museum staff centered on editing
the recorded testimonies. Traditional live survivor testimonies would be over 60
minutes long at times, and this was reflected in the 3D recordings for the Forever
Project. Editing testimonies could make them more digestible for school groups, both
in terms of length and content. Moreover, testimonies, at times, had historical
inaccuracies. The museum grappled with whether or not to correct these
inaccuracies given they never corrected mistakes made by live survivors. Similarly,
students could ask questions in which there is no direct recorded answer. Given the
museum staff’s knowledge of the survivor and answers to similar questions, museum
staff felt conflicted by the ethical considerations of providing their own responses.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS
VIHST is operating in an increasingly sophisticated field with ongoing studies
McGregor et al. Performance in Pedagogy
24
continuingly uncovering the potential and limitations of digital first-person testimonies
with practical implications for teachers. Our research investigated digital testimonies
that are static and fixed to the context in which they were recorded. The power of live
presentations was that they can adjust their narratives, drawing parallels between
their experiences and current social and political issues and adjusting to the
audience, but digital testimonies, as we observed, cannot. This raises questions
about the flexibility of testimony as a teaching tool. Moreover, teachers might have
more success teaching testimony as a source to be analyzed alongside other
sources. From our research and others (Schweber, 2006), students tend to hold
reverence for live survivors, treating them as exceptional humans not to be
questioned or challenged. Digital testimonies provide the opportunity to break from
this by framing testimony as a historical source for critical analysis: 1) analyzing how
testimonies are created and framed, asking students to consider what is included,
what is left out, and how digital testimony shapes historical narratives; 2)
corroborating testimony with other survivor narratives, highlighting similarities and
discrepancies; 3) comparing testimony with archival documents (e.g., newspapers,
survivor memoirs) to explore how different sources represent history; 4) encouraging
students to reflect on nature of memory by discussing how survivors recall and
narrate past events; and 5) looking at digital testimony with a historiographical and
media/technological preservation eye to understand process and product, not simply
novelty items but efforts to save the past. Other projects, such as the Inside
Kristallnacht project, have begun this work by incorporating VIHST from multiple
survivors and historical artifacts within an immersive mixed-reality environment.
Teachers would still need to take care of preparing students for this work, making
sure to debrief, reflect, and use historiographical skills, but this project does go
beyond a single story.
Additionally, given the limitations of VIHST, teachers will need to scaffold and
structure student inquiry. Virtual eyewitnesses cannot respond to unanticipated
questions that have not been previously recorded. Teachers will need to aid students
in developing thoughtful historical grounded inquiries and structure engagement with
McGregor et al. Performance in Pedagogy
25
these testimonies in thoughtful and aware ways; students need to understand what
these testimonies are, why they are being used, and what their limitations are, no
differently than how students understand other primary sources. Students need to
understand testimony in historical and place-based context, that these stories come
from a different time and place, utilizing maps, photos, and other sources to support
this understanding and aid the development of appropriate historical questions that
can be explored with sources including the testimony.
Lastly, teachers must account for the ethical considerations of using digital
testimonies. Our research focused on a museum setting, but as this technology
advances, potential use in the classroom is a looming reality, particularly with
resources like the USC Shoah Foundation’s IWitness program which is available
online. Teachers will have to juggle some of the ethical considerations we’ve outlined
above and may not have the expertise. Survivor testimony inherently deals with
conceptually and affectively difficult histories, histories that are both difficult to
understand and may elicit negative emotions (Walsh, Hicks, & van Hover, 2017), that
teachers will have to navigate thoughtfully to maintain cohesion and sense-making of
these difficult stories. Moreover, they will have to engage students in ethical and
reflective discussions: 1) What does it mean to “bear witness” in the digital age and at
a time when AI can create and modify digital testimonies online? 2) How are digital
and live testimonies different in terms of authenticity, emotion, interpretation, look and
feel, and how they are received? 3) What risks associated with relying on digital
testimonies should influence the decision to use them?
CONCLUSION
Our research on VIHST shows both an opportunity and a challenge for Holocaust
education. As we transition into an era where survivors are no longer living, virtual
witnesses can preserve survivor voices, foster historical thinking, and encourage
ethical reflection. However, acceptance depends on how teachers and museum
educators use it. By contextualizing, scaffolding, and critically engaging with digital
McGregor et al. Performance in Pedagogy
26
testimony, educators can ensure that students not only remember the Holocaust but
also develop the analytical skills necessary to confront historical and contemporary
injustices.
Q & A WITH IAN MCGREGOR, DAVID HICKS, AND JEREMY
STODDARD
Teacher’s Question #1: What are examples of “significant ethical and pedagogical
challenges” of using digital first-person testimonies that may be unique to perspectives
of K-12 education?
Authors’ Response: Some of the pedagogical challenges overlap with simple logistical
challenges. Our study focused on a museum site which brings with it all the normal
challenges of bringing students on a field trip, i.e., busing, food, permission slips, adult-
to-student ratios, parent volunteers, etc. And just like any field trip, pre-trip preparation
is essential. However, students might not have any experience with digital first person
testimonies and despite efforts from the teacher, may not be able to anticipate what
that experience will be like. Post-trip, teachers might possibly be navigating the
challenges associated with conceptually and affectively difficult history. Teachers will
have to take care not to impose secondary trauma.
Additionally, as these technologies inevitably make their way into the classroom, the
teacher inherits all the roles the museum staff carry. They now are stagehands, tech
experts, hosts, producers, directors, etc. Museum staff currently carry the burden of
cutting testimonies short or answering questions on behalf of the digital survivor when
the technology goes awry. Teachers would now have to make those decisions, and
possibly do so without the content expertise, familiarity with the survivor, and careful
consideration that the museum staff have.
Teacher’s Question #2: Is incorporating artificial intelligence the next logical and
perhaps unavoidable step in VIHST and what are the potential positive as well as
McGregor et al. Performance in Pedagogy
27
negative effects?
Authors’ Response: It’s hard to say if Gen AI is the next logical step. There is a world
in which Gen AI is used in the Q&A sessions. Given the generative power of large
language models, Gen AI might enable interactive dialogue, that is no longer
constrained by a finite set of prerecorded answers. In such a scenario, even video itself
may no longer be necessary. However, the museum staff in our study were very careful
in crafting a specific experience that was in large part predictable and known. The staff
sought to deliberately constrain variability to maintain coherence, reliability, and
emotional pacing. The introduction of Gen AI could compromise that design,
introducing unpredictable or unvetted responses that complicate the learning
experiences or raise new ethical challenges. Unlike curated, finite testimony, Gen AI
carries the risk of fabricating or hallucinating responses, as well as introducing
unintended perspectives, biases, and misinformation, especially when it draws from
large, uncurated datasets. Even when trained on carefully vetted material, Gen AI
functions by recognizing patterns in language and predicting the most likely next word
or phrase. This predictive mechanism could lead to the blending of distinct testimonies
or the construction of composite narratives in ways that were never intended by the
original witnesses, thus distorting meaning, context, or emotional nuances.
A potential positive is the ability to create an amalgamation of stories with a fictional
main character. The film industry does regularly, and educators are still able to use
those films as educational tools. In fact, the museum in our study has an exhibit
focused on the Kindertransport in England. The exhibit follows the amalgamated story
of a fictious child to create a more fully encompassing perspective. It serves as a sort
of “one stop shop” exhibit. An obvious negative of this approach is the lack of nuance
and perspective. Moreover, testimonies are given by average people who were put
through extraordinary experiences. An amalgamation may cast survivors as
superhuman or portray their experiences as so extraordinary students may doubt their
trustworthiness. There is also a danger of erasing individual experiences in favor of
thematic generalization.
McGregor et al. Performance in Pedagogy
28
Ultimately, the question is really whether Gen AI is technically possible, but whether its
use will enhance or diminish the ethical and pedagogical goals of Holocaust/Genocide
education. If Gen AI tools are employed, they must be developed with care, human
discernment, and transparency. Teachers and museum educators must remain central
in shaping how these tools are used, ensuring that students can engage with testimony
responsibly, critically, and reflectively.
Teacher’s Question #3: It is recommended that “teachers will need to scaffold and
structure student inquiry.” If teachers play a hand in adding structure to student inquiry,
how does this potential impact students' natural curiosity?
Authors’ Response: Scaffolding may enhance student curiosity. Without, especially
when teaching conceptually and affectively difficult histories, students may feel
overwhelmed or unsure how to engage meaningfully. Well-designed scaffolds—such
as essential questions, inquiry prompts, or frameworks for observation—can channel
curiosity productively, helping students make connections and think critically. The key
is to strike a balance: offering enough structure to support exploration while still leaving
space for student-driven questions and discoveries.
Teacher’s Question #4: Can you discuss more in-depth the implications of “place-
based learning?”
Authors’ Response: There has long been an assumed power of place in understanding
the past. How can someone really understand how Scottish clans under William
Wallace were able to defeat the English at the Battle of Stirling Bridge if they do not
understand how the bridge itself served as a chokepoint for the English soldiers (not
as depicted in the film Braveheart). In terms of developing empathy, it has also been
assumed that to understand the experiences of those from the past, as much as that
is possible, students need to understand where these experiences took place and how
those spaces, environments, and landscapes shaped that memory. Place-based
learning emphasizes the significance of geographic and historical contexts in
McGregor et al. Performance in Pedagogy
29
deepening student understanding. With digital testimonies, students will hear
narratives rooted in specific places, such as a ghetto or camp, without being physically
present.
Some aspects of place and environment are difficult to imagine and understand. For
example, the winter of 1944 in Europe was one of the coldest recorded – with clear
implications for both those held in concentration camps as well as soldiers fighting in
the Battle of the Bulge. However, other aspects of place, such as understanding the
immense size and industrial machinery of the Holocaust, can be examined alongside
the survivor’s story through photographs, 360 degree images, and now virtual and
augmented reality environments. Teachers can begin to bridge this physical gap by
contextualizing testimony with maps, archival materials, and local histories. For
example, when students hear a survivor describe an event in a certain country or camp,
they can explore historical sources, timelines, maps, digital exhibits related to those
specific sites. Even localizing learning, such as investigating and learning about
Holocaust survivors who lived or are living in student’s own communities, can make
testimony more immediate and relevant. What is key is engaging students in
considering space, place, and environment and the impact these things have on
peoples’ experiences – and how students might inquire into these impacts through
VHST and other sources. Place-based learning encourages students to understand
testimony not just as memory, but as situated history, shaped by the physical and
emotional landscapes in which it occurred.
Teacher’s Question #5: What work can you recommend that teachers engage in to gain
more "expertise" and prepare themselves for the ethical considerations of teaching
with digital testimonies?
Authors’ Response: There are several key ethical considerations when using digitized
testimonies of individuals who witness historical political violence and trauma. First,
teachers need to carefully consider their students and goals for using testimony –
particularly the potential emotional or affective responses students may experience.
McGregor et al. Performance in Pedagogy
30
Students should be prepared to engage in discussions related to genocide and
survivors’ experiences, and teachers should be attentive to students who may have
strong personal reactions given their own backgrounds and experiences. In some
cases, it may be appropriate to offer alternative assignments. Second, teachers need
to help students understand what testimony is: memory shaped by the survivors to help
others understand their experiences. These narratives are deeply personal and are
also influenced by the present-day context in which they are told. Teachers need to
make clear the differences between witness testimony and other historical sources,
emphasizing that testimonies are not neutral artifacts but lived, remembered, and
mediated accounts. Finally, teachers should consider the limits of digital testimonies,
especially when used in a question-response format. These formats may lack context
and nuance creating confusion and emotional distance. As we note in the article,
teachers should think carefully about the structures needed to prepare students for this
kind of engagement, as well as how to process and debrief the experiences afterward.
These pedagogical choices can help ensure that students develop a nuanced
understanding of the Holocaust through the humanizing lens of the survivor.
REFERENCES
Ballis, A., Gloe, M., & Hüttl, E. (2025). “Who will be interested in seeing this in 100
years?” Holocaust survivors’ perspectives on ‘Dimensions in Testimony’ and the
‘Forever Project.’ In A. Ballis, F. Duda, & M. Gloe (Eds.), Technology meets
testimony. Holocaust Education: Digital pathways in Holocaust survivors’
biographies. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-45924-6_18
Marcus, A. S., Maor, R., McGregor, I. M., Mills, G., Schweber, S., Stoddard, J., & Hicks,
D. (2021). Holocaust education in transition from live to virtual survivor testimony:
Pedagogical and ethical dilemmas. Holocaust Studies, 28(3), 279–301.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/10.1080/17504902.2021.1979176
McGregor, I., Hicks, D., Marcus, A., Stoddard, J., Schweber, S., & Mills, G. (2022).
Performance in pedagogy: Interactional forces informing a museum's use of
virtual interactive Holocaust survivor testimony. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the American Education Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Schweber, S. (2006). “Holocaust fatigue” in teaching today. Social Education, 70(1),
44–49.
Tirosh, N., & Mikel-Arieli, R. (2023). What we talk about when we talk about digital
Holocaust memory: A systematic analysis of research published in academic
journals, 2010–2022. The Communication Review, 26(2), 151–170.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2023.2177489
McGregor et al. Performance in Pedagogy
31
Traum, D. (2015). New dimensions in testimony: Digitally preserving a Holocaust
survivor’s interactive storytelling. In H. Schoenau-Fog, L. Bruni, S. Louchart, &
S. Baceviciute (Eds.), Interactive Storytelling, ICIDS 2015, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science (Vol. 9445). Springer, https://doi-
org.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/10.1007/978-3-319-27036-4_26
Walden, V. G. (2021). Understanding Holocaust memory and education in the digital
age: Before and after Covid-19. Holocaust Studies, 28(3), 257–278.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17504902.2021.1979175
Walsh, B., Hicks, D., & van Hover, S. (2017). Difficult history means difficult questions.
In J. Stoddard, A.S. Marcus, & D. Hicks (Eds.), Teaching difficult history through
film (pp. 17-36). Routledge.