History

Step-by-step debating: Improving student engagement in seminars (Markus Mindrebø)

In survey courses, it typically poses a problem for student engagement that seminars, like lectures, merely consist of imbuing the students with large amounts of detailed information. In one of our early seminars, I attempted a new strategy to attempt to alter this, heavily influenced by theories of social learning, namely to divide the class in half for a simplified reconstruction of a central debate in scholarship. 

There are obviously a variety of dangers in putting such a task in front of first-year undergraduates. First, in-depth discussion of the written material is sacrificed in order to accommodate free group discussion. Second, throwing students into this kind of debate, particularly in a group of people they might not know very well, can be intimidating. However, I will describe some ways to lessen this burden, and make the session an interesting and educational one for everyone involved. 

The first problem can be easily solved by organising the session material so that it leans towards one of two viewpoints (portioned equally). The second one, by dividing the students into smaller groups each with access to only a part of the material and by giving them simple and straightforward questions to analyse, subsequently making them educate each other on the material they have discussed, and eventually leading up to a larger class-wide discussion of both viewpoints. This gradual approach ensures a certain depth to the discussion of the entire material, while removing some of the pressure and building confidence in the students’ knowledge going forward. 

I found that this strategy, although only suited for a particular kind of topic and not something to make use of every week, helped engage students more than a mere walkthrough of different passages, strengthened class community, and helped teach them how to critically assess and present arguments for a viewpoint they do not necessarily share. 

Response:

This sounds like a really useful methodology. I’d be interested to know how you divide everyone up – do you let the students choose, or do you arbitrarily assign them a position? It certainly encourages objectivity and broad thinking to make students argue to others a position they don’t themselves agree with. (Tim Moore, English)

The situation seemed ideal for the method also to be utilised as an ice breaker. I also think it might be extremely useful for creating a positive academic atmosphere and impression for first year students, while still maintaining adequate guidance for them to find their footing. (Zhi Lin Ng, Earth Sciences; own post is at: https://sites.google.com/view/tlspace/earth-sciences)

Response: I found your ideas very interesting. I could see this being a useful technique in my own subject - sometimes having a discussion or debate of ideas in two large groups is an excellent way to energise students and allows them to engage critically with the material. (Jade Hainsworth-Walsh, English)

I have used a similar strategy when discussing various perspectives on organisational theory. I find it helps students learn to critique and break down arguments within writing and building up their own rationale. (Sarah Salahuddin, Management)

I really like the idea of incrementally increasing interaction and knowledge-sharing between students and I have found that this ‘snowballing’ strategy can be very effective in building confidence and engagement. David Jacques (2003) advocates it as a good tool for small group work, and also gives details of some other useful techniques here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1125374/ (Anon.)

This is a superb idea - a sort of 'social constructivist' approach which allows students to engage directly with materials, think critically, and learn from each other. I think this is also resonates with vogue pedagogical aims at the moment - particular those which focus on increasing oracy.  (Angela Platt, History)                                               

Seeing the Bigger Picture: Improving Students’ Familiarity with Primary Material (Amber Pierce) 

Often it is only through trial and error that first year history undergraduate students learn how to critically analyse primary sources. Consequently, when it comes to second year research essays there is a gap in analytical skills. 

Mid-way through first term, I decided to begin my seminars with a discussion about one primary source to increase students’ familiarity with primary material. This method significantly increased class interaction: all students could contribute, regardless of whether they had completed the seminars set reading. Retrospectively however, the initial use of one source only had significant limitations. Notably, the source would be discussed in isolation. Consequently, when it came to writing essays, whilst students had some experience discussing sources, they did not critically engage with the sources or situate them in dialogue with other sources. 

Accordingly, it became clear that the use of primary materials in a seminar needed to be employed more effectively. Firstly, I directly addressed why we would be looking at primary material (to help source analysis in essays). This meant that the students understood the level of analysis that was required of them within their essays. Additionally, students understood how this teaching and learning method could benefit them. Secondly, I used up to three sources, encouraging students to compare source content and provenance. Finally, by using one or two visual sources alongside a gobbet, students were able to contrast different sources against each other just as they would in an essay. 

I have found that this method provides a good platform for the following class discussion and has encouraged students to speak out about their interpretations of the sources, increased the students’ confidence when dealing with primary material, and helped teach them how to use sources that both support and contradict their essay argument.

Response:

Hi Amber, this is very interesting for me because I can associate with some aspects of the techniques you implemented. I also teach a course that is very much historical and the students were not doing the readings, and I adopted your first strategy which worked for me. So I did not have to attempt the advanced techniques you used. But going forward, I think they are very brilliant approaches that can be useful for historical courses. How did you manage the time? Because I think the only challenge is that, if you are doing an hour session like mine, there is the danger that you will be stuck in the literature without allowing the students to pursue some sort of independent thinking. But I think that is also the responsibility of the teacher to get a suitable format and adequate guidance for such discussions. (Emmanuel Siaw, Politics and International Relations)

The ‘Million Pound Drop’ as a teaching tool (Hannah Strathern)

When thinking about the approach to teaching I wanted to undertake I knew that I wanted to try and make seminars engaging and not simply undertake the learning by rote method I had encountered in my own undergraduate studies. As such I strove to, once the basics of the discipline had been established in the first few weeks, employ innovative approaches to seminars which did not simply focus on analysing sources. One of my most successful seminars took form of a gameshow with questions based upon that week’s topic of Gothic and Romanesque Architecture. 

Based upon the gameshow ‘The Million Pound Drop’ students worked in pairs and had to bet their limited amount of ‘currency’; I used Maoam Sweets, with anything bet on a wrong answer lost. The aim was to complete the final question with the most amount of sweets remaining. I gave the students a limited amount of time to answer each question and awarded one bonus sweet for every correct answer given. After the question's answer was revealed I then discussed with the class why this was the correct answer and provided greater detail on the architectural development.  

Quizzes in general are a great way to consolidate knowledge but the tangible inclusion of the sweets meant the students were actively debating the correct answer in their pairs as they wanted to win more. This game could be adapted for a variety of subjects and could be used both as a teaching tool and a method of revision.

Response:

I have used a slightly different version of this game (we called it simply ‘the betting game”) and it works really well, though I have played it without the sweets, which I think is a very good added incentive. I would give my students virtual money with which to bet, and instead of a single sweet, I would double their bet, which is a lot easier to do with fake currency, than with actual sweets. I also found that it was useful to make a maximum bet to head off those students who like taking risks and love to go “all in” all the time. The maximum bet is half of their remaining capital, so that, in theory they cannot end up with nothing, though I have to admit that I once had a group that was had so much unfounded overconfidence in their knowledge that they ended up with nothing. It is also possible to play it as a multiple choice variant, which works well if the game touches upon not necessarily known knowledge. This makes for a really fun class, thanks for sharing! (Naomi Grotenhuis, Politics & International Relations)

Fostering student-led learning in preparation for independent research (Adam McKie)

The jump between first- and second-year study in the history department can often be quite large, as students are expected to complete a 5,000-word independent essay by the end of the academic year as a precursor to their third-year dissertations. This task, designed to develop the student’s powers of independent thought and research, can often seem a big leap from first-year assessments. As such, I decided to use a seminar on the role of women in Victorian Britain (a popular topic with an abundance of material available) to try and advance these skills in an effort to foster independent student-led learning.

A few days before the seminar, I asked all my students to send me an image, lithograph, cartoon or portrait of a primary source in relation to ‘separate spheres ideology’ along with roughly 100 words of source analysis. The aim was for students to use the task to interrogate the theory outlined in the pre-seminar reading and critically engage with how this related to their source – i.e. did it support the reading, challenge it, or muddy the water? A shortlist of websites where sources could be found was provided, with the intention that the exercise would improve students’ independent research skills, allow them to pursue their own interests and direct their own learning. When thinking in terms of Bloom’s Taxonomy, this was also an opportunity for students to move beyond the ‘low-level thinking’ of knowledge and comprehension – which were designed to take place during the lecture and pre-seminar reading – but develop ‘high-level thinking’ in the form of analysis, with synthesis and evaluation taking place via class discussion. In this sense, it was also a chance for students to construct a more nuanced argument of their own from limited information and challenge other students’ interpretations too, a fundamental skill for history students. 

I believe the exercise was successful in these aims and I would use the technique again, however it could have been developed further by asking students, in groups, to use the sources to construct an essay plan to further reinforce synthesis and evaluation. 

Response:

It is great to see this being utilised at undergraduate level; it can be very helpful for visual learners to connect concepts and see patterns in what can be a very text heavy subject. I am interested to understand why a list of websites was provided for students. Was this list carefully crafted to decolonise the curriculum and provide a balanced repository of sources? Or, in creating the list, did you inadvertently add your own personal bias heavily into the activity? It would certainly be interesting to see how the list was altered, if an element of student co-creation was added to increase inclusivity. (Rebecca Lewis, Educational Development, Academic Services)

Collaborative Learning Spaces in A Digital Environment (Lyndsay Galpin)

The debate over the use of technology in teaching spaces seems to be a debate that resurfaces regularly in pedagogical discussions, particularly on Twitter and in the media. But one particular Tweet has stuck with me for a few years now. One grad student from the US described how a group of her students had been using Google Docs to simultaneously take notes in a collective file. Students would mark places where they were confused, and other students could see, explain, and help each other – all in real time. Ever since, I have been trying to come up with ways to incorporate this idea of collaborative learning within a seminar environment.

Luckily, on one of my courses, all students took notes electronically, which has allowed me to experiment with this idea. My aim was to create collaborative documents that students would be able to use as revision tools. I used Microsoft’s OneDrive (which students had access to through their institutional email accounts) to create a shared folder for the seminar groups, with subfolders for the topics of each week. The main way I introduced this idea was through collaborative essay plans. I split students into 3-4 groups and gave each a different essay question. The students then uploaded the plans to the OneDrive folder where everyone could access them. For the set-reading reviews, I created a table with rows for each piece of reading, and then columns for students to note key points, the conclusions drawn, and the strengths and weaknesses of each piece.

My efforts to encourage collaborative learning varied in their success. When done in class, the exercises proved successful and useful – the OneDrive allows you to see who accessed the documents and when, and many students were accessing the essay plans during the revision period. What both I and the students thought was useful with the essay plans was that they had access to three or four times the revision resources for the effort of creating one. However, my efforts to encourage students to utilise the Drive outside of the classroom (e.g. sharing reading notes) were less successful. On reflection, I think collaborative working really depends on class dynamics. There can be a certain degree of competition amongst students, and a concern that some students will freeload on the work of others, but it’s something I want to continue to experiment with in my teaching practice. 

Response:

This is a great idea! I have used collaborative documents before but only in my personal dealings. Indeed, this can be problematic depending on the group dynamic as you rightly noted. For me, I see a lot of potential, in the real time application of this, perhaps during lectures. However, in an English department, where seminar interaction is crucial, I think this shared document would be a good way of collating questions, observations, and important passages in the beginning of the seminar (done in pairs or small groups) to then use in directing and facilitating the discussion. This would be good especially for the first year students, who are often wary of saying anything out loud. (Timo Uotinen, English)

Role play and Context in History of Political Thought (Mads Jensen) 

This is an idea that I have been playing with, and which I would like to develop further on future courses. It involves students defending two different sides of a debate and could be role playing as a specific historical person or just defending one side of a theoretical debate. I think this would work well as a concluding activity at the end of a seminar, or even at the end of a term, allowing students to apply the knowledge they have gained and the teacher to assess students’ understanding and the extent to which teaching aims have been achieved. It also relates to a specific threshold concept, that of “context” or “contextual history”, encouraging students to relate texts to their historical and argumentative contexts. 

Before a role-playing exercise could be introduced, some ground work has to be done: to ensure that students have read and understood the key arguments in a given text. A prior class discussion also helps students clarify the argumentative and historical context in which an argument was made, and who the argument may have been aimed at or against. For example, a disagreement between the Protestant reformers Martin Luther and Theodore Beza over whether one may resist a tyrannical ruler. 

On this basis the role playing is introduced. Students are divided into groups which prepare the arguments for each side, with one student acting as the spokesperson (e.g. Luther or Beza). This would also show consideration for students who might not be comfortable role playing in class, and who could instead contribute in the group by providing material and arguments for their side. 

This approach I think both allows the students to better understand and appropriate arguments as “their own” even if very foreign to them and sharpen their sense of how historical texts are always contributions to a debate in a specific context with specific interlocutors. It also allows the teacher to assess the extent to which the students have understood the issues at stake.

Responses:

I often stage mock debates in my classes, but I had never thought of getting the spokespeople to role-play! I think this is a great idea—I often have trouble getting students to stick to their assigned position, and I expect that if they were tasked with role-playing a specific figure rather than defending a claim they would be more likely to stay focused. (Thomas Waterton, Philosophy in Politics, Philosophy and International Relations)

I also love this idea! I think role-play is a great way for students to explore themes and ideas that they might not necessarily have encountered. 

We have run similar sessions in geography, although rather than a mock debate we run a mock ‘Dragons Den’ style presentation where students have to plan a development project in a given city and try and sell their idea to a board of investors. This is to get them to think not only about the issues a city faces but how development projects are always framed in relation to business and the economy and the many advantages and disadvantages of such approaches.   

It certainly forces many of them to play devils advocate as well as providing a real-world application to many of the concepts/ideas that they have already learned in the classroom. I found this useful article online that sets out a typology and framework for using role-play in higher education if anyone else was thinking of giving it a go. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.728879. (Ed Brookes, Geography) 

"Get to know your leader" - the use of Speeches and Quotes in the Context of Political History (Dilara Scholz)

Similar to Amber's approach of incorporating primary sources early on to guide the students in their way of working with primary material I thought of applying a similar method to political history. I used primary sources such as speeches and quotes as:  an ice breaker for the students to start the session and get into the topic and to widen their perspectives on certain leaders.

Especially political history can be heavily biased, depending on the sources one uses. HS1113 is focused on leaders of the non-western world who will most likely not have been discussed at school or if so, very briefly, from an often one-sided perspective. 

We discussed one leader in every session (e.g. Nelson Mandela or Gamal Abdel Nasser) and in accordance with this, I browsed online archives and websites for speeches or written material by said leader. To make it more interesting for the discussion, I chose three different snippets or speeches under a certain theme (Independence, Colonialism, Nationalism). To open the session, I asked the students if they had heard of said leader before the lecture and if so, what they knew about them and what their view on them is. I then gave them the source, with the class divided in groups of 3-4. The students then presented their source to the others after ca. minutes of working through it. In the larger group, someone from each group got to share what they found out about the tone and about what the leader shares about him/herself.  Something of importance here as well: contextualization and audience (domestic? International?) .  We often found surprising differences in speeches from different times of the leader's career or especially those given after a certain event. It was interesting to see the student's surprise and change in perspective on said leader. Especially when I asked them at the end of the tutorial what they thought about the leader now, they often realised their own bias and the importance of perspective. This is going to be especially useful in their second year, when preparing for their Independent Essay.

 This approach can have multiple advantages: even those students who are not perfectly prepared can participate, it makes the topic more "relatable" and approachable, serves as a great introduction to get into the actual class discussion and most of all, it opens students' eyes on how to deal with sources like this. This method can really open one's eyes on certain events and personalities but also on how things are reported and remembered. Especially political speeches and quotes give great insight into the power of words, why and how certain things are said, when and to whom and allows that feeling of an almost "first-hand-encounter". 

Response: 

Great idea Dilara! This sounds like a highly effective way to get the students talking and thinking with more nuance - a 'first-hand-encounter' with a small snippet which allows them to hone crucial skills in the unthreatening atmosphere of the ice-breaker. I especially like your focus on making sure all of the students can participate - both those who have not prepared or struggled with the reading in advance, and those who might be less confident about speaking straight to the larger group in a broader discussion. I'd be interested to know whether you found that this approach had a knock-on effect on the confidence levels in your seminars: were more reticent students emboldened to contribute more after working with specific quotations in small groups? (Nat Reeve, English)

This is a really good idea, thanks for sharing! I think this is something that I would really like to try in one of my entrepreneurship classes to widen my students perspectives on what it means to be an entrepreneur. Especially in a class that emphasizes on moving away from the ‘hero’ view of entrepreneurship by finding speeches or quotes of successful entrepreneurs who acknowledge that success isn’t achieved in isolation. (Emilio Costales, Management)

Ideas on class involvement:

When I started teaching I was obviously influenced by my own experience as mature student as well as the seminar teaching that I had received during my undergraduate degree. The model I adopted was based on what I perceived as the best practice from those teachers whose sessions I had enjoyed and learnt in, while consciously avoiding the poor examples (as I saw it). The main problem was how to involve students in discussion, so I decided to start and end each seminar with the focus on the main theme. The course I teach on, a 1st year module on ancient History, has a new topic each week and the course controller has a seminar theme. I used this as a starting question, asking each student in turn for their views. My aim was to get them talking and thinking straight away and hoped this would act as a basis for further discussion. However, it soon became apparent that those asked after the first couple of students tended to say little, claiming others had already said what they thought. So on reflection after a couple of sessions I decided to break the theme down into three or four questions so I had enough variety to make sure I could engage with all students and they would be able to voice their opinion. 

After we had finished the seminar, after we had gone through the set work sheet which is in form of a handout, I would spend the last five minutes of each session going back round the group to see if anyone had changed their mind from the answer they gave at the beginning in light of the seminar work. (Stephen Pearce, History)

Response: 

I really like the idea of taking time at the end of the seminar to return to questions and answers from the beginning. I have also had issues with student involvement at times and have tried tactics similar to yours, but have never thought to then return the responses later. I'm sure that then led to even more involvement and discussion. (Amanda Reding, English)

Response:

I think this is an excellent idea, Stephen. I think classes often start off with a general discussion of topic, a kind of ‘let’s see where everyone stands’, only to then proceed to either expand upon those beginnings, or altogether move away from them. It feels to me that classes, sometimes due to bad planning, and sometimes due to the inevitable ‘unplanned’ deviations they can take, often end without an appropriate return to where they started. What you’re encouraging with this exercise, it seems to me, is that students reflect upon what they ‘then thought’ and what they ‘now know’; that they see each class as a micro-journey from one point of knowledge to another, and, by extension perhaps, the module as a larger journey made up of these singular instances. (Paul Hammond, English) 

Ideas on critical thinking & engagement in class

As someone who has been involved as a teacher in academic study skills and teaching history to undergraduates (and secondary pupils) my enthusiasm for inculcating critical-thinking skills has always pervaded 'the classroom' for me. I try to avoid asking students to view primary sources as 'homework' outside the classroom, and instead prefer to set time aside for some 'social- constructivist' learning, wherein students engage with the sources as a group, and then share their findings with the class. Here is one example which I have enjoyed in the classroom:

I was teaching a session over MS Teams, trying to interrogate whether or not women were expected to be 'angels in the house' in the 19th century.  After the lecture, and discussion of scholarship of this issue, we spent some time diving into the primary sources. I broke up the students into two groups, and gave them each an assortment of diary and letter extracts from two women in the 19th century (Anna Braithwaite and Elizabeth Fry). I asked them to review these primary sources independently for 10 minutes - considering whether or not these women represented this expected ideal, and what they found most interesting about the excerpts. Before we began, I gave them a brief introduction to each of these women, to allow for social context (I've always disdained when teachers have asked me to dive into primary sources, in the past, without giving me some context on who wrote the source!). Students spent 10 minutes assessing these sources and making notes. I then asked students to share their findings with the class, and I'd like to make a few points on what I observed.

1. Firstly - if we had been in the classroom, I think this activity would have been even more beneficial - as students could have conversed in smaller groups with one another, before sharing with the class. This can often be less intimidating for students who do not wish to share their personal thoughts with the whole group before firstly 'testing' them on peers. Also, I would have aimed to break students up into mixed groups - so they could compare and contrast the primary source excerpts by these two women.

2. Secondly - I noticed that the inclusion of a very generic question 'What did you find most interesting?' or 'What stood out to you?' was supremely helpful. I ran this session a few times with different groups - and when I restricted the discussion to just answering the question 'does this source support or contradict women as angels' the discussion, as expected, was more restricted as well. When I asked students to tell me what they identified as most interesting, I was fascinated by the conversation this inspired about other aspects of experience which was inspired by these excerpts. It inspired students to talk more about masculinity, about religious expectations, and other avenues which were highly relevant to our session. Of course, the caveat with this is it needs to still be directed, lest students end up in discussion which is too tangential to the session. But I think the benefits outweighed the detriments.

3. Thirdly - In an RHUL Research Development course a couple years ago, I was introduced to this method of classwork where students are asked to engage with a question/source firstly individually, then in pairs (or small groups) and finally as a class. This was a supremely helpful method which allowed students who needed space to ruminate independently to do so, created space for those who like discussion to do so, and allowed students who prefer smaller group discussion to larger the space engage. I noticed that students were far more likely to engage in these sessions, when I followed this model, than when I asked them 'off the cuff' to give me their thoughts, in front of the class, about a topic or question.

Angela Platt (History)

This activity sounds both interesting and helpful, bringing the experiences of real women into conversation with an oft-repeated idea. I was particularly interested read about how helpful you found the general question – something I tend to avoid – when combined with specific questions and I’m looking forward to trying that dynamic in my own teaching. Thank you.

Medieval History and Object-Based Learning  (Richard Asquith)

Object-Based Learning (OBL) is a teaching method which is gaining traction in library and museum studies (Barlow, 2016), but also has important implications for the more traditional study of history. It involves encouraging learning via the medium of physical objects: ‘learning about, with, and through objects’ (Paris, 2002). This contrasts with conventional approaches to history (particularly those taught at schools) which primarily deploy printed textual sources, taken out of their original context. OBL encourages active and experiential learning, and has been demonstrated to enhance students’ interest and engagement with the subject being taught (Bunce, 2016).

I employed OBL in teaching after realising how (inadvertently) my best experiences as a learner had been in environments which employed visual and material historical sources alongside documentary sources. In teaching seminars, I deployed two types of OBL: first, by bringing in real medieval coins for students to examine and interact with in what was otherwise a relatively ‘dry’ seminar on the economics of the Black Death; and, second, by employing ‘surrogate’ objects in the classroom – that is, digital images of historical objects and documents. Practical limitations, like those highlighted by Cain (2011), prevented the use of actual objects in my sessions, but I found that surrogate objects still provided a useful and engaging learning tool. In some cases, I had the students analyse the object, its symbolism, and its historical context, and in others I presented them with images of original documents alongside translated texts for them to analyse.

There are several reasons why OBL is an effective and novel method for teaching traditional historical subjects. First, it elicits an emotional reaction from students that subsequently helps with retention of the learning objectives and with developing a deeper understanding of the subject matter, by being able to link it to a specific experience upon later reflection (Chatterjee, 2008). It also permits a social constructivist approach to learning, as students can develop their own knowledge and understanding through physical engagement with the object and its symbolism by considering its historical context. Pollak (2009) also asserted that OBL presents an inclusive teaching method for neurodiverse students. I saw the results of OBL through increased and sustained engagement in those parts of the seminar, but also in the written work produced by students. They clearly enjoyed adopting a new approach to historical sources, perhaps because it encouraged them to think like researchers (Kador et al, 2018).

Response

Thank you, Richard. As a kinesthetic learner, I really value the idea that objects enhance learning, rather than sticking to a more traditional 'chalk and talk' approach. Engaging more than one sense is essential for learning to become embodied (Chatterjee & Hannan, 2008), as well as  bringing subjects such as history into the present, and making it more 'real' to students, as you say: eliciting the emotional reaction. It is interesting that this doesn't have to be with 'charismatic' objects such as a famous person's belongings, but could also be simpler day-to-day objects that engage students in thinking about how people lived and experienced the past. I hadn't really thought about the idea of 'surrogate' objects such as digital media, and will be exploring this in future - especially valuable for the online learning experience. (Kim Walker, Historical Geography, Royal Holloway)

Chatterjee, H. J., & Hannan, L. (2016). Engaging the senses: object-based learning in higher education. Routledge.

Thank you for these thoughts, Richard. This method of Object-Based Learning reminds me of a seminar from my Creative Writing MA. As our campus was in Bloomsbury, we were but a short walk away from the British Museum. We were tasked with exploring the museum for our session and to find an object whose history, or physicality, resonated with us. This would then be used as material for us to create a narrative which interspersed our own creativity with the lineage of the object. Indeed, visually impaired students are allowed to touch replicas of certain exhibits such as the Rosetta Stone. When we then regrouped after the session, we found that we not only had a wealth of new creative ideas, but of actual historical stories to share alongside them. (Michael Wheatley, English)

Fantastic idea Richard. Conjuring up the past with physical and virtual artefacts, and spaces perhaps? Dare I suggest, virtual reality time travel. The virtual reality lab at RHUL has designed some virtual spaces where you can engage with statues, and throw objects off a roof! I agree, an emotional response to material is essential to attention and learning. Perhaps a hybrid session could enhance the sensory learning experience. One where students can handle physical objects within a virtual reality context, with you as a guide. The possibilities are exciting. (Ryan Jefferies, Psychology) 

Beyond Theoretical Models: Applying Theory to Primary Sources (Katy Mortimer)

Both historiography (the history of history) and primary source use and analysis are necessary elements of historical study. furthermore, while most undergraduate history courses offer historiography modules, these rarely incorporate primary source material. As such, students often find themselves debating big philosophical ideas without applying them to historical events or primary sources. This commonly results in surface level understanding, as well as circular arguments lacking evidence beyond the theory itself, and reluctance to critique and secondary scholarship.

I encountered this problem recently, and so incorporated primary source analysis into the seminar reading and discussion early on. I found that giving students pre-modern written sources to consider alongside modern theories pushed their content knowledge while developing their critical thinking skills. Where previously students had favoured overarching theoretical models for understanding the past, and were relatively unwilling to critique ‘great thinkers’, once provided with primary source material created centuries before these paradigms were constructed, many students quickly unpicked modern theoretical models, becoming more confident in their own analytical abilities.

One particularly fruitful discussion occurred in a seminar on Marxist theory. Most students started the class agreeing that Marxist theory can usefully be applied to most western societies (past and present), and that economic factors have always been the main motivators behind societal change. I challenged them to consider the strengths and weaknesses of this theory within the context of medieval society, specifically asking students to read short extracts on the crusades to the Holy Land (holy war between Christianity and Islam, initiated by the papacy in 1095 CE to capture Jerusalem). Even when financial gain was mentioned in the source material, most students found that Marxist theory could not convincingly be used to explain events, and that other motivating factors took priority.

By providing students with more primary source material as the module continued, I found that the majority of students engaged deeply with the theories they encountered and the arguments posited my modern scholars. This helped them gain confidence when using primary source material, critiquing secondary scholarship, and offering their own evidence-based opinions.

Response- 

Thanks for your insightful thoughts, Katy. I think you have provided one of effective methods of teaching which can be used for promoting deep learning. I concur with your observations, and argue that students remain hesitant in critically engaging with meta theories such as class struggle of Marxism because they have been introduced with proponents of such theories through hagiographic literature, that reduces their confidence since they might think that big thinkers could not have made a mistake. Besides, students, particularly undergraduate students as you mentioned, get introduced with such theories through secondary literature and sometimes translated literature, so they fail to understand the originality of the meaning. This also makes them reluctant to criticize big theories and thinkers. However, early exposure of original text infuses moral confidence among young students to critically engage with theories and thinkers. (Arvind Kumar, Politics & International Relations)

Medieval History and Teaching Historiography - James Currie

One of the most difficult parts of teaching history is getting students with the idea of historiography, and more broadly with the idea that books they are used to trusting could be wrong. And on top of that, we have to teach them the ability to detect when a piece of secondary literature may not be correct, or is offering only one side of an argument. The first year students in particular struggle with this, and although there is a module dedicated to historiography, they don't have much opportunity to apply it to their seminars. And because we have only an hour and the resources available are only a powerpoint and a handout, this has to be taught conventionally and straightforwardly (no OBL like in Richard Asquith's post talks about). On the course Rome to Renaissance, there is a particularly difficult seminar on the treatment of minorities in the Middle Ages, which is really about the book Formation of a Persecuting Society by R. I. Moore and its flaws, which is really about historiography. 

Before teaching it, I was told that students typically don't engage well with the topic because they don't feel able to criticise well established historians; at most they'll pick a side in a debate rather than arguing anything themselves. I decided not to teach them directly about the debate (which was already covered in some of the lecture) but instead to take them through contemporary sources and ask them if they matched what Moore said about the treatment of minorities. Through doing that they gradually came to understand the flaws of Moore's book without them feeling like they had to have an opinion on a major historiographical debate, even though they did. When, at the end of the seminar, I asked them how they felt about Moore's book and if they could independently critique his work (and reminding them that they would have to do this if they wanted the higher marks in essays) and a surprising number of students were confident in their opinion. They were certainly a lot more confident than when I asked them at the start of the class, which let me know that I had successfully taught them about the issues I had to cover without overwhelming them, and I hope that they will go forward in future seminars knowing that historiography isn't that scary and is something they are capable of engaging with independently. 

response: 

This is a great approach to working in a constricted context to overcome challenges around student reception and confidence around a subject/methodology. It strikes me that there is something immediately refreshing and energising to starting a seminar by effectively saying 'forget that big monolithic thing we just waded through in a lecture; let's look at a range of short sharp contemporary things instead'. (Apologies for this paraphrasing of your teaching, but I very much intend it as a compliment!). I've often noticed that students, especially first years, liven up when the material is something they can easily and directly relate to their own lives, the debates and experiences and time they're living through. This is something that comes up in a lot of teaching best practice literature too.  There's something satisfying, if I can say this, about the texture of the session you describe as well: providing a range of different sources for students to 'get their hands on', each presumably with their quite different  feel and story behind them. I also love how your session seems to have emboldened them to engage critically with the main material as they returned to it later in the session. It would be easy to assume that just starting the session saying (again, forgive my flippant paraphrasing!) 'let's have a go at this stuffy old guy Moore, let's take him down' would have got students going. But you wisely note that first year students need leading towards the point you arrived at, step by step rather than in one big leap. 

Tim Cowbury, Drama, Theatre and Dance 

Encouraging topic exploration through groups - Jee Xian Yu

I had prior experience with teaching students through a TEFL course I took between my 2nd-3rd years, and as such my activities were heavily based on the philosophy of class participation, self-discovery and exploration with unfamiliar vocabulary and grammar, with group work that reflected some degree of real-life practical input. Language learning is heavily rooted in the practice of constant communication. However, the subject that I was teaching: “Modern Leaders in the Non-Western World” was not a language class but a 1st-year history class. The subject seemed more suited to dry presentation/lectures rather than intra-class discussion and debates more suited to a seminar. Nevertheless, I drew on prior experience to ensure students could engage in self-discovery as much as they could, with some direction.

This was done via having students answer a central question in groups. Based on a series of criteria such as ‘nationalism’, ‘imperialism’ and ‘impact and success’, I had students pick apart the primary and secondary sources set for this reading. While initially directed at first – as with the criteria, as students became more comfortable with their skillsets and aims, they began bouncing ideas off one another in trying to answer the underlying questions – especially encouraged by the idea that “there are no right answers”, which encouraged them to develop their own theories and ideas. Finally, the groups were also asked deliver their own conclusions to one another, in a style akin to a conference – which ended up with groups conflicting against one another on their viewpoints having vigorous debate.

Aside from this, within a seminar on socialism I found it useful to gather student impressions and uncertainty on the topic BEFORE the class via an overarching question of “what are you most uncertain about socialism?”. While the prior lecture would have given a better outline, socialism/Marxism has been the centre of many a confusing debate, and doing so allowed me to be flexible in answering the doubts and direct their understanding throughout the class. I could also go over students’ questions after the class and see if their questions were answered.

Perhaps discussion using OBL (as Richard Asquith outlined above) would have been effective as well – imagine a class interacting with memorabilia such as Indira Gandhi posters to Maoist souvenirs could have emphasised the physicality of socialism’s impact.

Response (Mollie Mills, Geography)

Using group work is a great idea to break away from the ‘dry lecture format’ (as you put it!), which you thought may have suited your topic better. In my teaching experience, splitting students into groups and asking them to discuss a topic, leads to greater class-room participation and student inclusivity. Particularly for less confident students, who may not feel comfortable with public speaking in front of the whole class for fear of embarrassing themselves, this informal setting can encourage them to participate among their peers. I also liked that you told the students there were ‘no right answers’, which then allowed them to think freely within worrying if their answer was correct. It is also great to hear the students were bouncing ideas of each other and debating between groups. This shows the students were deeply engaged with the topic and thinking critically.

On the other hand, I would use the format of the exit poll I employed again. Using the wordcloud option in slido.com, I asked the question ‘What phrase best sums up the situation in Europe in 1945?’ Students responded individually, having previously discussed the question in groups and written an argument. The answers popped up on the board and gave us an overview of the different ideas which students had developed during the session. This allowed me to pick out two sophisticated answers for the plenary discussion (‘1945: Echo hour’ and ‘1945: A great ambiguity’), and I asked their authors to elaborate on them. To my surprise, the two students were not the ones who had volunteered answers during the rest of the session. They were able to explain their ideas clearly and convincingly and demonstrated the sort of argument required for their module assessment. The slide with students’ answers also allowed me to sum up the remaining answers and ask some further questions of their authors.

The number of poll participants showed me that not all students submitted an idea to our exit poll, which in turn shows that slido is not a magic bullet with which to solve the problem of participation in discussions. However, most students did take part and the number of those who did not matched the number of students on international exchange programmes who might need more targeted support than an opportunity to take part in discussions in non-verbal ways. It is an accessible way for students to contribute their ideas at a level of their own choosing. I highly recommend it and will be using it again to facilitate discussion – one of the core activities in any History classroom.