Grading Learning

When I was taking classes towards my undergraduate major, I was forced into education courses which, for the most part, were utterly useless. They taught us high ideals, unrealistic conceptual frameworks, “student-friendly” assignments, and how to use technology that is most unavailable to most high schools. Thus, the concept of backward design is not new to me, nor should it be new to anyone. In short, backward design is creating assessments and assignments by defining the goals of the course from the outset, before any other thought is given towards textbooks, etc. Ultimately, the real problem with assessment is the formulation of stated course goals and objectives.

First, the only two forms of assessment I’ve seen used in survey courses are exams (multiple choice and short answer/essay) and essays. Of course, there seems to be agreement that part of our “calling” is to produce better writers. While I, in spirit, agree with that sentiment, we have become part-time English professors. I find myself marking grammar, spelling and punctuation errors more than reading for content. Though these errors need to be corrected, I can’t help but wonder if we’ve become outdated in that sense. Sure, better writers mean better students and “citizens,” but is it really producing students who are better educated in the field of history?

I am not suggesting getting rid of the essay, but rather, we should try to get students to write better “arguments” using more “analysis” rather than summarizing and perfecting their grammar. Even so, there is a huge problem with that as well: How do you ask the right questions to guide the students to producing more analytical writing? Instead of taking off points for bad grammar (though it should be stressed that it still needs to be readable), we should be focusing our efforts at producing argumentative students.

As for assessing content knowledge, again it is more important to have students learn rather than regurgitate information. Instead of asking students to write all you know about “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen” we should ask more specific questions, such as: How was the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen a turning point in the French Revolution? It is not asking when was it written, nor is it asking who wrote it. Still, there are issues with this method, as all are aware.

Even though I have opinions on this matter, assessment is not a strong part of my limited capacities, and it is something I must work to improve. Also, I have difficulty defining my objectives for the course. I am not an innovator, but I certainly would appreciate someone who has a brand new method of assessment that works for the history survey course. In the end, I will add my own variations of familiar forms of assessment until I or someone else discovers a way to quantify “learning.”

Teaching Undergraduates Skills?!? Psh!

During our seminar last week, we never really answered the question, what skills are we supposed to teach students in a history class? Well, here is my (hopefully) concise recommendations for the skills we ought to be developing in students who are forced (at gunpoint apparently) to take our survey courses.

First and foremost, we must instill and develop analytical skills. Though students hate the infamous paper, it is perhaps the best tool we have to promote historical analysis. Unfortunately, many professors fail to package (or sell) the papers as means to an end. Rather, students see the analytical essay as the end. We ought to sell the essay as a tool to practice analytical thought that can be profitable and useful later in most if not all professions, not just history.

Second and apparently a popular subject in our seminar’s discussions, our lectures, assignments and assessments should promote the students’ understanding of human interaction in world history. Why not embrace the present, globalized world as a theme that ties world history together and makes it relevant to the individual student? If we can make our content relevant, then students will digest more, though still not all, of the information we so shamelessly shove down the throats of mostly unwilling students.

Third, world history instructors should take great care to foster understanding and acceptance of the myriad cultures, polities, societies, religions, languages and commodities that define and have helped to shape this world. Though this seems like a tall order, I am not suggesting we teach everything about everyone every time, but rather, we ought to provide examples of the variety of the human experience that promote tolerance.

Lastly, we ought to provide instruction and practice for students to not just learn a little bit about the wide, wide world. Instead, we need to give them the research and reading skills that will allow them to find the information on their own, since there is no way in hell we can teach them everything about world history. In the end, we ought to have provided the students the ability to find, analyze and digest the information without the help of the instructor.

Of course this is not an exhaustive list, but just examples by which we can build upon. Thoughts?

The Manning Proposal

In an attempt to describe the state of the field of world history, Patrick Manning explains the development of world history as a separate realm of research, study and education. Quite obviously, he is aware of the audience for Navigating World History. By targeting academics, professors, high school teachers and general history buffs, he draws a large picture on an even larger canvas that does little more than provide an outline of world historiography.

He states five distinct objectives that are each discussed in detail in each part: 1) defining world history in terms of current trends, 2) expansion of world history, 3) summarize the state of world history, 4) develop structures for logical analysis of research, 5) and offer guidelines for curriculum design. But perhaps more important, he weaves five separate but related themes throughout the book. First, world historians can provide understanding of the field through “navigational” techniques, and secondly, multiple patterns have emerged from the development of world history as a distinct field. Thirdly and unfortunately, teachers must teach a subject that covers too much content in too little time, making Manning’s attempt at summarizing and offering a guide on constructing a world history course all the more difficult. Theme four is his emphasis on Africa as a central focus because of the continent’s centrality in the connections that defines world history and its move away from a dominance focused history. As he writes, “historians should go beyond dominance to focus on interaction, (ix)” which he does well to support throughout the book – his strongest argument. Lastly, and one he repeats, is that world history struggles to fund its attempts at becoming a legitimate and well-defined professional field.

Rather than examine every detail, there are a couple of points that Manning makes that seem to resonate louder than others he makes. For one, in chapter six, he makes it clear that the study of interaction is much more important than the older and, he believes, outdated dominance focused histories and curriculums of the past. He argues that world history has always been about the interaction between peoples even if they define themselves in contrast to “others.” Though occasionally there are violent interactions, violence between groups or individuals are still interactions. However, he provides an example of the weakness of the dominance focused studies by comparing the Mongolian empire with the bubonic plague. Basically, he contends that, though the Mongols established a very large political empire, the bubonic plague wiped away all political entities that sought to control the world, making dominance a more impossible dream (111). Here, he is at once confusing and wrong. If interaction is what we want to study, then how is the Mongolians search for dominance not more important than the Black Plague? Did not the plague inhibit interaction while the Mongols enhanced it? If he is so much concerned with keeping interaction as the main focus, how is empire building a subject to avoid?

Lastly, Manning is right when he argues that global studies are a product of a globalized economy and political sphere. Since global studies provide a fresh approach to world history, he contends historians should embrace more interdisciplinary and inclusive approaches, but says little in how to do so. Ultimately, he fails to provide guidance in how to construct a curriculum that resolves the problems he details in the preface. However, his main weakness is his constant complaining about the lack of resources that world historians have at their disposal. He sounds like a Baptist pastor preaching about tithing every single week. Instead of offering options and alternatives to more funding and resources, Manning offers little that apprentice historians (such as we fine folks) can use to overcome these obstacles.