
An examination of seminar teaching also ties into another aspect of the Department of History: it has been chosen to work with the Carnegie Foundation as a partner institution in a national initiative to re-think and re-envision the PhD. During 2003-05, our department has held discussions that have revealed that we want to diversify the skills we develop in graduate students, revise our curriculum, and alter the comprehensive examinations we give to our graduate students. Because the traditional seminar format has been viewed as a process to move the graduates closer to their comprehensive examinations, this discussion gave me another reason to re-envision the way I teach seminars.
The Faculty Seminar at the Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE) at KU and a Carnegie Foundation workshop at Stanford University provided me with ideas that centered the changes I am making in the seminar. In the CTE seminar, I learned about backward design, which encourages teachers to determine-before they do any other class planning-what it is that they want the students to be able to do when the course is over. At the Stanford conference, we discussed different methods of learning. I think that I had always expected students to fit into a "one size fits all" mode, an idea that might mean some very promising students are frustrated when that size does not fit them.
| ImplementationEach assignment has a writing component and the final project is now a cumulative project instead of a paper. In this project, the students create a teaching unit for an urban studies course in their own discipline. By doing this work, graduate students improve their teaching skills, which is important because many of them will do much more teaching than research when they accept a professional position.
The variety of disciplines represented by the registered students made for interesting discussions, but one surprise was that no history graduates were enrolled. The course was cross-listed in sociology and international studies, a factor that increased the diversity of students. This meant that I had to carefully find ways that they could make the course serve their disciplinary needs and not lean it too heavily towards my area. But because knowing "the other" is useful in defining disciplinary borders and identities, I believe it helped social sciences and literature students to understand what is involved in the methods, sources and conceptions of a historical project.
| Student PerformanceThe cumulative unit required the students to create a teaching unit based on "The Global City." I made three revisions to the prompt after the semester started, and I believe those changes added to the success of the student work. Instead of creating a final paper based on semester readings, the students had to create a teaching unit that would be applicable to their specific discipline. It required students to review the intellectual work of the semester and transpose that into materials that freshmen and sophomores could access.
Student evaluations also added to my knowledge about the impact of the course. I created an evaluation form that asked questions specific to the course units, and I believe that including paraphrased student comments from those evaluations provides a good balance to my observations.
| ReflectionsTeaching this course has led me to think more deeply about five pedagogical areas. These areas are research topics, amount of writing, oral presentations, coverage, and impact on teaching. Regarding student learning, I noticed improvement in several skills, such as writing, inclusion of material from scholarly journals in their research, and ability to do research and comparative analysis. These skills should be transferable to other areas of learning, and I am pleased at the intellectual growth of my students.
| Summary
