Name: Scott Stempson
Email: sstempson@msn.com
Institution: University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Address: 610 Oldfather Hall, UNL, Lincoln, NE  68588
Date: 2/15/01
Time: 12:47:19 PM

Comments

Professor Kelly:

My name is Scott Stempson and I am a first-year PhD student in history at the University of Nebraska. I am currently taking a seminar on teaching history, and you have, no doubt, been receiving comments from other members of this seminar. Let me first congratulate you on your work--not only on the course itself, but also making it available for others to use. It seems to be an ongoing struggle for history professors to keep their students interested in the subject, let alone getting them to develop historical skills in the process. Your five objectives you hope to impart to your students are good ones, and it looks as though, from your conclusions, that this type of format has had some success--especially with objective number five, getting students to return back to source materials they had used in the past. I also liked the way you opened the course with the use of a Sherlock Holmes case to show the correlation between the detective and the historian. Coming from a family involved in law enforcement, I've often thought of the similarities between the two professions and I thought it was interesting that you brought that out. It is also a good way to "hook" your class right away as murder mysteries are something everyone seems to enjoy. It was also interesting that you gave them a survey right away concerning their experience with the web. I wouldn't mind if you would take that a step further and give them a survey of their knowledge of history in general. This might help getting a feel for the background of the class in this area. One question I had, and perhaps you covered this and i missed it, is what happens if there are students who do not have access to a computer or the web? There must be some out there who do not. I was also concerned that you spend two full weeks on historical methodology before delving into the actual historical topics. I realize this is a ground-breaking format, but, as you said yourself, fourteen weeks is not much time to cover a lage amount of information, and when you cut it down to twelve, it's even tougher. Also, for a survey course, it may be a bit idealistic to think you can turn these, most likely first-year students into historians in one class. That may be something that would be more appropriate for upper-level classes. I liked your comments at the end of your Objectives section concerning "presentism." I totally agree that if you don't link what happened in the past to what happens today, you are going to lose your students' attention. However, it is also important to stay away from placing our present values and ideals onto the people of a different time. I was glad to see that you spend time in your course with this subject. I have rambled on long enough, but again I wanted to thank you for this tool you have given professors, and prospective professors to use. I look forward to viewing your updates in the future.

Name: David Pace
Email: dpace@indiana.edu
Institution: History Department, Indiana University
Address: History, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405
Date: 11/20/00
Time: 1:24:02 PM

Comments

This a great model for all of us. I recently applied for a grant that called for a extensive plan for sharing the results of a web development project with other scholars. Your web site gave me just what I needed for a model of how to do this. If I get the grant, I'll be back here regularly stealing your ideas. I am also giving this address to other people at my university who are interested in exploring new ways to make teaching visible. Thanks for getting out front on this on for all of us.

Name: Samuel Thompson
Email: samthomp@indiana.edu
Institution: Indiana University
Address: Franklin 004
Date: 9/13/00
Time: 3:36:12 PM

Comments

I review th e portfolio not as a historian but as one interested in the potential of portfolios as instruments of

a. Formative evaluation for the author as well as the readership. Is there reason to believe that teaching of the author or of those reading the portfolio (whether historians or not) is or can be improved by this portfolio?

b. Summative evaluation of the author for teaching awards, promotion or tenure.

In the review, I try to apply the criteria specified on the Peer Review website:

course content and goals how to try to accomplish those goals data from how well the learners did reflective writing on the relation among the elements

I attempted to measure the length of time needed for peer review because this factor bears on the practical use of course portfolios as evaluative instruments. It was difficult to measure time precisely because of frequent interruptions. Reading the portfolio … not all of it but enough to get a good sense of it … took about forty minutes. Writing this review will take about another forty, not an unreasonable length of time.

As to a. and b. above:

There is reason to believe the portfolio project has improved the teaching of the author. His careful specification of objectives, rationale for course design, data review and statement of conclusions have clearly been reflective processes for him. His design and use of instrumentation has afforded insight into details of the learning conditions for these students … more insight and detail than faculty typically gain. Moreover, the existence of the research design, the comparison of web and print versions, and the matrix of surveys and other instruments seem to produce useful information for the improvement of teaching. I conducted my own research within the portfolio by comparing averages on "overall quality of course" and "overall quality of instructor" in the University Student Evaluation administered in four sections over two semesters. An increase in ratings is visible and this seems especially remarkable given that there is very little room for increase because the ratings are all near the top of the scale. This is not incontrovertible evidence of self-improvement but nevertheless noteworthy evidence.

There is reason to believe the portfolio holds potential to improve the teaching of those who read it because it affords readers constructive ideas and techniques regarding at least the following: · clever and innovative uses of hyperlinks, formats, and other web capabilities. · model of inquiry and associated design and instruments .. the attention to and use of sources of information from students. · course rationale with emphasis on deeper learning objectives rather than memorization of facts. · Conclusions and their discussion

Two other comments:

Learning "facts" was not stated as a learning objective. One of the most widely touted examples of mediocrity in American public education is the dismal evidence that a significant proportion of people cannot correctly locate the Civil War within 50 years or so. Facts are important as a baseline for use of historical knowledge. Longitudinal test results on a few key items of fact would strengthen the portfolio.

Regarding recursive reading, at least in the web version of the course cannot the website be instrumented to record and count the times and dates by student of return to sources from earlier in the course? If so this would be better evidence than the results of surveys and subjective judgments.

Both of these comments are to the effect that the scope of instrumentation could be diversified a bit.

There is evidence that this portfolio is a useful instrument for summative evaluation. It gave a very clear picture of what the faculty member has done, why, and how well it worked. It is unimaginable to me that after reading this portfolio, one could consider T. Miles Kelly to be other than a truly excellent teacher. Furthermore, his portfolio is such a good example that it should be shared with others. The portfolio is, of itself, an act of scholarship.

Name: Dan Kaiser
Email: kaiser@grinnell.edu
Institution: Grinnell College
Address: Department of History/Grinnell, IA 50112-1690
Date: 9/11/00
Time: 8:23:51 AM

Comments

I have visited the site several times, but have not yet studied all the various units of the site, so my remarks are inevitably preliminary. Still, I thought I would send along a few words now while I have the site on-screen.

First, let me congratulate you on this project, and the clarity which you've brought to the pedagogical process. The on-line portfolio is its own kind of accomplishment, but I am even more impressed by the way in which you've laid out a set of clear, well-defined learning goals for your students. As a veteran teacher myself, I am often reminded of how imprecise are my own ideas of what I would like students to take away from a given course, and therefore I admire the directness and clarity of your goals.

As you know, I am also very interested in web-based learning, and what it might mean for teaching history (and teaching more generally). I am not so skilled in web-based methods, nor yet so enthusiastic about them. Nevertheless, I can see many potential advantages, which is one reason I have been so interested in your experiment.

On the evidence of student reports, web-based materials do prove more attractive and accessible to students. According to student self-reports, they were much more likely to return to reread and study sources available on-line than were students who used print sources (Table 1). I am not sure whythis might be so, but, given your teaching goals, this would seem to support your argument about the pedagogical utility of putting history materials on-line.

On the other hand, I was struck by the extent to which student comments (Small Group Instructional Diagnosis) pertained not so much to web access as to the traditional classroom. Students remarked on the fact that you learned their names, that you delivered interesting lectures, that you encouraged discussions, that your grading focused too much on grammar, etc., etc. In other words, student consciousness of the web--whatever the reason--was certainly less over than my own. And perhaps that means--I should emphasize 'perhaps'--that the more conventional aspects of classroom teaching are still by far the most important thing in teaching, no matter whether the teacher hands them printed or web-accessible texts.

Several other issues struck me as important and interesting; I found the Peer Teaching Review report of interest, not least because of the extent to which it seemed to sidestep the questions at the heart of your experiment. "Teaching Culture" has many meanings, some specific to institutions, others to teaching goals (of which I was especially reminded by the remark of one of the peer reviewers who suggested a multiple-choice content-based examination as a means of testing teaching effectiveness). In any event, there are many themes suitable for further discussion among teachers; perhaps we can discuss them more later.

I will add only one further remark which, as it happens, resonates with one of the other comments in your on-line comment box. I am not the person to say it, given my relative inexperience in web-based methods, but all the same I venture to suggest a simpler and more intuitive web site. One reason that I have not yet visited the entire site is that the links buried within links (what a previous comment described as 'drill-down') become fatiguing and confusing--at least to an old guy like me! I was especially frustrated by the questionnaire results in tabular form: to learn what the percents represented, one had to click on the link to Q1 or Q2, but in doing so one lost the percents. I realize that packaging all this material on one page is a complicated problem, but viewed within the experiment itself--that is, how to attract and induce students to linger more meditatively over the sources--the issue of accessibility and ease of apprehensive is not insignificant.

Well, this turned out to be a lot longer than I thought when I began typing. Let me summarize briefly: kudos on taking on this project, and for providing an excellent example of how teachers--wired or otherwise--ought to make their goals explicit, and search for ways of attracting and developing student critical thinking. Thank you, too, for making this report available on-line, and I look forward to future installments and reports about it. Finally, although I wish you well in your on-going efforts to chart new strategies of employing the web to teach history, let me congratulate you on your success with the 'conventional' classroom. I hope that one result of this project is a more vigorous, open dialog among teachers about teaching, and its place within the academy. Keep up the good work! -dan

Name: Dennis Bozyk
Email: bozyk@smtp.munet.edu
Institution: Madonna University
Address: Department of History, 36600 Schoolcraft,   Livonia, MI 48185
Date: 8/24/00
Time: 1:03:55 AM

Comments

Hello, Professor Kelly. I teach many forms of alternative delivery and distance learning courses. Often I am teaching to non-traditional and underserved communities, eg. courses to blue-collar workers at the Ford Rouge Plant in Dearborn, to Hispanic women in Southwest Detroit, etc. I also teach traditional on-campus classroom courses in European History and a few specialty courses acquired over many years of teaching.

I have only begun to explore your course portfolio, but I am most impressed and a bit intimidated. I am very appreciative of your open and sharing presentation of the development of your course. I am strongly supportive of your emphasis on focused explorations and historical skills rather than on vast, thin coverage. Summer's vacation opportunities prevented earlier comments, but I would like to share in the professional and collegial discussion of your course. I will come back to your course portfolio and to your questions in future messages.

I recently participated in a very insightful two-week seminar on asynchronous learning sponsored by the Sloan Foundation. One of the themes, loosely supported by empirical evidence, was that on-line learning that focused on *self-paced* independent learning did less well than traditional classroom courses. However, on-line courses that emphasized * interactive* student learning experiences accomplished *more* than traditional courses. I wonder if more diverse on-line interactive work might benefit the students in your course. I am also interested in the development of authentic, performance-based assessments, which might replace the artificial and often meaningless (to students) traditional quizzes and tests. I am impressed by your thematic use of the Kagan text, rather than a continuous linear reading, page by page, chapter by chapter.

I agree with an earlier commenter's emphasis on web design. I believe that the interest and attention of web "readers" is greatly affected by the design of pages and ease of navigation. I think the organization and design of your site is very effective, but there might be ways to reduce the feeling of labyrinth and to increase the sensory experience of your site. Your site is superior to other web-based history courses that I have explored.

You are doing wonderful work for your students and for university study of history. Thank you for sharing so openly. Your " previous comments" log may become an electonic discussion site for faculty pursuing goals similar to your own. I will write again soon. thanks. dennis

Name: Lura Lee
Email: lura@luralee.com
Institution:
Address: http://www.luralee.com
Date: 8/23/00
Time: 9:01:13 PM

Comments

You are probably not going to like my comments, but hear me out. First, my credentials: I have 2 MAs in history and I'm a computer professional/technical writer and web designer. So I have some basis for my opinions.

**I think that your site design is seriously flawed and it will affect your student's ability to get the full use out of online learning. Put simply: there is too much "drill down" required. The student should be able to get to everything within a MAXimum of 3 clicks. You have a lot more keystrokes involved. You'll have to relinquish some control, but the learning can be deeper and more meaningful for students. Read __Web Design in a Nutshell__ ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565925157/o/qid=967081745/sr=2-1/103-2082783-2583069 ), and __Designing Web Usability__ ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/156205810X/o/qid=967081689/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_3/103-2082783-2583069 ).

Trust me, the packaging does count. If you are a good web designer in addition to being a good historian, you'll be a good communicator and a good teacher. If you aren't a good web designer it is akin to you speaking in a monotone drone throughout a three hour lecture; no matter how good of a historian you are, students won't learn as much from a boring lecturer.

**Also, due to the exigencies of reading a monitor, people won't stand for a writer or professor that is enamored with his/her own words. In short: online audiences expect you to get to the point. So mark off the important points by using HTML to your advantage. Use style sheets to implement a highlighter effect, use bulleted lists, box off important info, or whatever it takes.

**In my opinion, it is time for professors to be specific about what information he/she expects the student to glean from a particular reading. Don't be like the teacher in Ferris Buller's day off. Be dynamic, polemic, enthusiastic and specific and students will respond thoughtfully.

I applaud you for your efforts, but you have a long way to go. Don't give up. Good luck.

Name:
Email:
Institution:
Address:
Date: 8/23/00
Time: 7:03:43 PM

Comments

Nothing on your site catches the eye, it is very difficult to scan. I wasn't tempted to stop anywhere and read. It looks like shovelware. I'd suggest reading _How People Read on the Web_ http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html and even Jakob Nielsen doesn't take into consideration things like white space -- a bit of air around the text which would benefit your site. But I do Web design not history. Maybe historians are different??

Name: Dennis Ehlert
Email: ehlertd@moval.edu
Institution: Missouri Valley College
Address: Marshall, Missouri 65340
Date: 8/23/00
Time: 4:28:23 PM

Comments

Dr. Kelly, I enjoyed walking briefly through your course. Not being a historian, I am afraid that I did not linger very long. I am interested in what software you used to created you site.

Dennis Ehlert Missouri Valley College Marshall, Missouri ehlertd@moval.edu

Name: Jack Betterly
Email: jbetterl@yahoo.com
Institution: Emma Willard School, Retired
Address: EWS, Troy, NY, 12180-5294
Date: 8/23/00
Time: 1:18:37 PM

Comments

I taught history in independent high schools for 42 years and just retired this June. I was the only teacher with a computer, Internet access and projection capacity in class. Obviously, I am fascinated by your site. It represents hard work, creativity, and care. I am not sure what kind of comment you would find helpful. I am myself persuaded the the entire infrastructures of schools, colleges and universities are going to collapse of their own expense and weight over the next decade or two. If that is true, online education is an obvious alternative. Yours is a fine model. I maintain that schools are oral cultures, and good education is oral. (Check my courses web site for Monitored Discussions.) If so, I suspect the increasing technology of voice communication on computer will gradually alter the course you present. Text can never be the same human contact, connection and influence as voice. One way or another, exciting times! - Jack -- "It is easier to move a cemetery than it is to change a curriculum." - Unattributed quotation by Jerry Bentley, Editor, Journal of World History.

Jack Betterly Emma Willard School 285 Pawling Avenue Troy, NY 12180 E-mail: jbetterl@yahoo.com Alternate E-mail: jbetterl@nycap.rr.com Courses: http://willard.emma.troy.ny.us/~jbetterl/HIST/WELC.html Personal Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/4519/ Home Phone: 518-274-0587 (Answering Machine)

Name: Dan Tompkins
Email: pericles@astro.temple.edu
Institution:
Address:
Date: 8/16/00
Time: 7:35:16 PM

Comments

This is not my full comment, Mills. I'm working away on this endless project and find myself asking, how come so few student comments appear in your listserv discussion? Is it just a sampling?

The "Conclusions" section is just splendid.

Best,

Dan

Name: Pat Hutchings
Email: hutchings@carnegiefoundation.org
Institution: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
Address: 555 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Date: 7/11/00
Time: 4:10:59 PM

Comments

Mills--I have enjoyed following your work over the last year, seeing your course and your investigation of it evolve and take shape through this portfolio. I confess, however, that I had lost track of the portfolio itself, which I had not had a chance to review in its current form--until today. It's smashing.

I should say that I come to this work not at as an historian but as someone who has done a lot of work on the concept and practice of course portfolios. This electronic portfolio is one of the best I've seen. It's easy to navigate, rich in substance, and suggestive (even bold) in its conclusions.

I especially appreciate the explicit listing out and discussion of what you have learned from the course/portfolio. To put it differently, you've really turned the corner from a document that is primarily for the maker (you) to one that is reader-focused. This is particularly evident in your willingness to put forward your conclusions, and to do so in a way that is on the one hand bold (and therefore suggestive) and on the other appropriately cautious and modest. This is especially noteworthy, to me, in your conclusions about the of technology and hypermedia--which do, as you say, have effects of various kinds but do not in themselves, alone, explain the most important things that do and do not happen in terms of student learning. What you show is that in a sense course design trumps technology. Or rather, technology needs to be seen as an aspect of course design rather than mostly as a different medium of delivery. This sounds obvious but I think it is not the dominant view.

I'll comment on just one more aspect of the portfolio, which is the inclusion of peer review. I was particularly struck with the use of collegues as reviewers of student work. That's a wonderful way to incorporate peer review. A question it raises for me is about the use of external assessors (if I may call them that) as part of the regular teaching and assessment of the course. I began my career at Alverno College where this kind of assessment was routinely used, and where student papers, presentations etc were routinely evaluated not only by the course instructor but by colleagues and by professionals in the community. In short, what works for the portfolio might just have implications for the teaching and learning itself.

Oh yes, one last thing: this notion of recursive reading will, I believe, have considerable resonance outside history. I teach literature and writing and there are clear parallels. Good stuff for further conversation.

Thanks for the chance to comment! Pat Hutchings Carnegie Foundation

Name: David Trask
Email: traskd@gtcc.cc.nc.us
Institution: Guilford Technical Community College
Address: Box 309, Jamestown, NC  27282
Date: 6/22/00
Time: 2:46:32 PM

Comments

Mills, I have reviewed your materials only lightly to this point (I am getting ready to leave town next week.). But I think you have put together some wonderful material and done some good work. I have referred your page to our dean to see if this is the sort of approach my college wants to encourage (and support financially). It is good to see good historians addressing pedagogical issues in thoughtful ways.

Also, I appreciate seeing my essay in the list of materials you have presented. That is fine company.

David 

Name: Carolyn Schneider
Email: schneiderc@gtcc.cc.nc.us
Institution: Guilford Tech
Address:
Date: 6/23/00
Time: 5:41:08 PM

Comments

[This message is a reply to the previous message, as well as a comment on the site. TMK]

I read most of the stuff--did not print all, so now I have to go back to site--and I was really excited by what I read. It seemed to be EXACTLY what I imagined the blend of Badway, WIDS, Cooperative Learning, etc. etc. etc. all in one package that (best of all) was really working on maintaining academic integrity as a first priority.

He poses exactly the questions performance-based learning (like WIDS)likes to ask--not what do students KNOW, but what can they do. It is a very obvious, legitimate question in vocations--one would prefer a nurse who can give a shot to one who knows about shots; a plumber who can fix a toilet to one who knows toilets, etc. However, it is a wonderful question in general education, too--because ultimately, we don't want our students to KNOW as much as we want them to DO--which in our case would be THINKING, ANALYZING, EVALUATING--the "know" part they can always look up, and then that gets us to another "do"--which is research!

I would rather my students write than know writing; that they understand how to read and maybe even WANT to read than to have them remember the definitions of literary forms etc., etc. Focusing on few works and doing those well would be better than reading the whole Norton Anthology.

The "know" level is not abandoned, of course--those things become the foundation for the doing. I guess educational theory would support the application of learning makes it last longer---perhaps accounting for why I have forgotten all the Luther's Small Catechism I once had memorized. But I digress.

What I liked about his approach was its helping me to understand further what you have said all along: it's about thinking historically, not about memorizing facts.