Transforming Course Design in U.S. History
A collaborative project by:
Joyce Hanson CSU San Bernardino
Alicia Rodriquez CSU Bakersfield
Laura Talamante CSU Dominguez Hills
Daniel Lewis Cal Poly Pomona
Birte Pfleger CSU Los Angeles
Chris Endy CSU Los Angeles
Jeff Gold CSU Office of the Chancellor
August, 2009
Table of Contents
I.Introduction
II.Overview of CSU U.S. History Survey Courses
III.Why Students Don't Succeed
III.a.Student Personas
III.b.Student Challenges
IV.Improving Student Learning
IV.a.Improving Reading and Writing Skills
IV.a.1.Enhancing Reading Skills
IV.a.2.Comprehensive Textbooks in the United States Surveys
IV.a.3.Enhancing Writing Skills
IV.a.4.Writing and Tutoring Centers
IV.b.Student Engagement and Evaluation
IV.b.1.Active Learning Strategies
IV.b.2.Clickers
IV.b.3.Classroom Assessment
IV.b.4.Grading Rubrics
IV.c.Technology and Learning Management System Tools
IV.c.1.Discussion Boards
IV.c.2.Automated Quizzing and Tracking
IV.c.3.Posting Class Notes Online
IV.d.Course Materials
IV.d.1.Supplemental Video Content
IV.d.2.History Labs and Publishers’ Online Resources
IV.e.Class Size and Student Achievement
IV.e.1.Teaching Assistants
IV.e.2.Hybrid Courses
V.Efficient Instruction
VI.Individual Redesign Plan Summaries
VII.References
I.Introduction
As part of the continuing CSU systemwide Transforming Course Design (TCD) initiative, in fall 2008 campus provosts identified the U.S. History survey course as a strong candidate for course redesign because it was deemed to be a large enrollment general education course with high rates of DFW grades across the CSU system.The goal of the redesign project was to encourage a group of history faculty from a variety of CSU campuses to analyze student challenges, explore course structures, and identify and evaluate strategies for improving student learning outcomes and increasing cost efficiencies when possible.
In winter 2009, a Design Team consisting of three faculty and a Review Team with three faculty began conducting an analysis of student outcomes and instructional models typically seen in CSU U.S. History courses. The team then assessed and selected tools and resources that have the potential to enhance traditional classroom-based instruction with increased opportunities to master key U.S. History concepts. Over the course of six months, the team engaged in individual research, collaboration in a web-based project workspace, weekly phone conferences, and a face-to-face meeting.
The wide variety of contexts amongst the various campuses in the CSU system prohibits a “one size fits all” approach to U.S. History course redesign. Because of this, the U.S. History team opted not to recommend a single redesign approach, but rather to construct a “menu” of course redesign components from which faculty at any given campus can select various redesign components that are appropriate for their particular student needs and campus resources.
One essential goal of the U.S. History survey course that was preserved throughout this project was the desire to teach students how to think like an historian. "History as I learned it in the classroom had a lot to do with memorization of facts," explains Dr. Nikki Mandell of the University of Wisconsin. "What Thinking like a Historian helps us do as historians and teachers is to help understand how those names facts and figures fit into historical knowledge. They are not history in and of themselves. They need to lead us to interpretation of what matters and why it matters" ( history instructors lament the lack of historical thinking in introductory survey classes. Most students come to class wanting to know who, what, and when but almost never why. These students have been taught that history is simply the memorization of names, dates, people, and events. They want us to tell them the "right" answer, so they can pass an exam. We want them to understand how these "facts" fit into the larger picture, why history is important, and how to think critically about the information they are bombarded with on a daily basis. Our goal in this report is to offer suggestions and teaching strategies that can help us in teaching our students to think like historians.
Students, in order to buy into the importance of thinking like historians, need to understand how historical analytical skills go beyond the U.S. History survey course. So what insights and skills will students take away from their investment in learning to think like an historian? Dr. Peter Stearns at George Mason University addressed this important question in his "Why Study History?" for the American Historical Association. He notes that history students learn to assess evidence, including conflicting interpretations, and to assess the significance of historical change ( Critical thinking is the primary skill historians cultivate through the synthesis of the known facts of an event alongside the multiple perspectives of different individuals and groups in society that contributed to or fought against change at a particular moment in U.S. history. Historians, and our students, learn to critically analyze primary and secondary sources in order to better understand how and why change occurred in the past and the long-term meaning of that change. Historical perspective shows us that the meaning of change is not static over time and that understanding history is to discover that the interpretation of the meaning of change continues to create debates among historians and the population at large.
Thus, students will have a better understanding of the world they live in today and its relationship to the past. They will understand how our society has changed over time as well as the continuity with the past, which is to say that many of the issues they face today are long-term issues in U.S. history. Such insight and knowledge is an important part of becoming informed and concerned citizens, whose actions and decisions will shape our future. Moreover, and perhaps what our students need most to be convinced of, they will take away enhanced reading, writing, and critical thinking skills that will help them to succeed in other classes and in their future careers. "Employers often deliberately seek students with the kinds of capacities historical study promotes. The reasons are not hard to identify: students of history acquire, by studying different phases of the past and different societies in the past, a broad perspective that gives them the range and flexibility required in many work situations. They develop research skills, the ability to find and evaluate sources of information, and the means to identify and evaluate diverse interpretations. Work in history also improves basic writing and speaking skills and is directly relevant to many of the analytical requirements in the public and private sectors, where the capacity to identify, assess, and explain trends is essential" (
Communicating to students the importance of learning how to synthesize information from a variety of sources and to communicate their conclusions about the intersection of those materials as an invaluable skill set that will be rewarded in other classes and in their lives beyond the university is a goal that our team believes is essential to improving student learning and success in the U.S, History survey. The benefits for students also translates into benefits for the university with more of its students succeeding across the curriculum.
This report will expand upon this line of thinking and present several suggestions for improving student learning in the U.S. History survey course. The report contains seven sections as follows:
- Introduction
- Overview of CSU U.S. History Survey Courses - This section provides background summary information about the U.S. History survey course offerering at different campuses within the CSU system.
- Why Students Don’t Succeed – This section identifies student challenges in the U.S. History survey course by presenting several student personas, each with a name and a specific, vivid description of the student’s background, situation, challenges, attitudes, and personality. The personas were born out of discussions about the common obstacles that prevent U.S. History students from succeeding in the course.
- Improving Student Learning - Acknowledging that many of today’s students have an approach to learning that differs dramatically from norms of even ten years ago, this section provides an overview of various tools, resources, and strategies designed to enhance student engagement. Also included are suggestions for implementation and best practices.
- Efficient Instruction – This section provides a general overview of ways in which the various redesign plans may improve efficiency of instruction, including reducing the cost per class section or reducing the number of sections offered.
- Individual Redesign Plan Summaries – This section includes an overivew of team members’ individual course redesign plans, which illustrate the diversity of approaches needed to meet student needs on a variety of CSU campuses.
- References – The final section includes provides detailed information and references for several topics covered in the report.
II.Overview of CSU U.S. History Survey Courses
The US History survey fulfills a General Education requirement and the State of California graduation requirement for American History and Institutions in addition to fulfilling a basic requirement for history majors. Because the US History survey is a required course, many of the students enrolled in the course are not history majors. Campuses generally offer the survey in a two series sequence (either US History to 1865 or 1877 and US History since 1865 or 1877) although the entire US History survey may be covered in one semester length class. Multiple sections of the survey course are offered to meet student demand.
Most CSU campuses use lecture/seminar structure for US History instruction, but some faculty have been pursuing a policy of active learning in the classroom requiring small group discussion, projects, or presentations. The course structure is directly related to the number of students enrolled. Large lecture format (75-250 students) are more likely to adhere to a strict lecture format, especially when no graduate assistants are available. Smaller class enrollments (20-75 students) are more likely to engage in interactive pedagogies.
Responses from history department chairs and available syllabi indicate that faculty has broad latitude in designing and implementing the US History survey.
- Faculty members are free to choose texts; no campus policy exists requiring a common text. Required reading assignments are drawn from a textbook (Farragher, Roark, Brinkley, Nash, Murrin, and Norton are all used) and lecture topics generally follow the chapter structure of the text with little deviation. Primary source document readers are a usual supplement as are primary documents on CD or the web. Many faculty members assign one to three monographs, novels, or autobiographies in addition to texts and primary document readers. Most faculty members assign no more than three texts.
- Assessment instruments appear to vary based upon the number of students enrolled. Multiple-choice quizzes (including online quizzes) are used in addition to multiple choice, short answer, identification, and essay exams. A few courses require students to keep a journal recording short (150-300 word) responses to assigned readings. There are very few online assessment instruments used across the campuses.
- GE guidelines require ”a significant writing component” in all GE classes. Since the US History survey fulfills a GE requirement, formal writing assignments are found in almost all of the courses examined. The scope and type of these writing assignments vary across campuses and include journal entries, primary document analysis, or reflection papers. Some require students to complete a 3-6 page analytical essay (1500-2000 words) based on readings of primary and secondary sources. Others require students to respond to a prompt based upon their analysis of primary documents. The number of students enrolled in each section of the course seems to have a direct effect on the number and length of the assignments.
- Most campuses do not employ graduate assistants, and undergraduate teaching assistants are employed only for logistic purposes. If graduate students are used for large lecture sections (100 or more students) they typically grade quizzes and objective portions of exams. Undergraduate teaching assistants may distribute materials, grade objective portions of exams or quizzes, and help proctor exams.
Most CSU campuses theoretically have goals, objectives, and an assessment plan in place for the US History survey. These are most often found in the course syllabus and generally follow the GE guidelines. Some campuses do have a mechanism in place for ensuring that these goals and objectives are met, but most monitor the outcomes only loosely. In response to inquiries, department chairs indicate that the review process for probationary tenure-track faculty, temporary faculty review, post-tenure review, and student evaluations are the most common means for addressing this issue. At least one campus engages in systematic annual assessment through data collection.
Students can find support services on most CSU campuses. Some of the services are only available to targeted groups of students (e.g. first generation college students, lower-income students, ESL students, students with disabilities). The primary support service across all campuses appears to be a writing center to assist students in the writing of specific assignments. Most faculty members advise students to make use of the writing center, but none of the materials examined indicate that students are required to use this resource.
Libraries provide appointment only services that aid students in learning to use library resources. Any instructor may request a library instruction session; requests must be made at least one week in advance of the desired session time. Librarians teach instruction sessions lasting about an hour, and customize these sessions to the needs of the class. Session size is limited by the available facilities and therefore tends to discriminate against large lecture classes.
Some campuses have special programs focused on helping first generation college students, low-income students, and ESL students adjust to academic life on a university campus. SAIL (Student Assistance in Learning) and EOP (Educational Opportunity Program) are two such programs. The specific goal of these programs is to increase the college retention and graduation rates of targeted students at the undergraduate level through academic support (tutoring and adjunct discussion sections) and advising services. The programs recruit and retain students by providing a comprehensive program of support services which include admission, academic advisement, career and personal counseling, tutoring, financial assistance and graduate school information.
Department chairs responding to inquiries indicate that faculty members receive WTU credit for teaching large lecture classes. In most cases, any faculty member teaching a class that exceeds 75 students receives credit for additional units. The number of units may vary based on department policies. Some departments fund graduate/undergraduate assistants for large lecture classes.
Faculty members can find support services on many CSU campuses. A campus may have a Faculty Center or Teaching Resource Center that provide grants and run workshops and programs for faculty. The goal of these centers include: improving and enhancing teaching expertise; exploring pedagogical issues and strategies; promoting dialogue and communication on teaching and learning; providing mechanisms for disseminating information; promoting an active learning environment. Although not strictly targeted at faculty members teaching GE survey classes, grants, programs, and workshops improve and enhance pedagogical methods.
III.Why Students Don't Succeed
The Design and Review Team members developed and discussed a number of student personas representing students who have low success rates in the U.S. history survey course. In Section III.a., the list of student personas put “faces” on the student challenges that the team members identified. While every instructor might not encounter every type of student outlined below, and some students may fail courses for reasons not identified (such as those who stop attending class but fail to submit the appropriate withdrawal paperwork in a timely manner to the registrar’s office, resulting in the instructor assigning the student an “F” in the course), the personas represent those students whom instructors most frequently encounter. The personas help us understand how these challenges are reflected in our individual student’s lives and their unique socioeconomic circumstances. As the largest public university system in the nation, CSU instructors face the most diverse student population in the country and thus engage a complex array of student challenges.
In Section III.b., the description of student challenges develops an analysis of the collective student traits found in the personas and the overall challenges that CSU students and instructors face in US History survey courses. Not all CSU students face every student challenge identified, but the personas allow instructors to think about student challenges as they reflect our students as people and not simply student success in the U.S. History survey as a set of abstract obstacles. The student personas and challenges guide the rationale for the course redesign solutions