In 04-1 and 04-3, I supervised Hist. 338 and 339. Owing to course releases, I did not teach in 04-2. In 04-3, I taught Hist. 223 and 331.

I revised 223 to emphasize the evaluation of historical arguments. To that end, I changed the readings to make room for a book that I had not used before: Andrew Cunningham and Ole Peter Grell, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Religion, War, Famine and Death in Reformation Europe.

04-3 marked the third and last time that I taught 331, which I merged with 318 to create a new course, Hist. 320: State and Society in Early Modern Europe. The readings that I assigned were very different from the last time that I taught the course in 98-3. In the first half of the semester, I assigned brief (one-page) written assignments relevant to the assigned readings. These were designed (1) to get the students to do the reading, (2) to enhance class participation by giving students a written basis from which to speak, and (3) to give them feedback on their writing in preparation for more substantial written assignments. The brief written assignments contributed to the class participation mark (20%), as I pointed out in the syllabus.

I changed tactics in the middle of the semester because oral participation was declining. I addressed this problem in class. Some students wanted to continue with the weekly written assignments, but the majority of the class wanted a series of assigned questions to guide them through the reading and generate class discussion. I obliged, but this was not completely successful. Attendance trailed off, and a good number of students did not participate. I was no longer aware of how every student was understanding the readings. I tried something new by asking for a few written assignments in November. Instead of writing brief essays, students devised outlines of and discussion questions related to the assigned readings. I called on some students to put their outlines on the board, and we addressed their questions. This enhanced class participation.

I experimented in tutorials with having two different students guide discussions each week. This worked surprisingly well. I was pleased, and it seemed that the students liked the format too.

The course evaluations indicate that students were in general satisfied with the courses and with me as the instructor. In 223, 86% rated the course A or B and 83% rated my teaching ability A or B. 85% rated the tutorial A or B, and 89% rated my teaching ability A or B. The corresponding figures for Hist. 331 are 59%, 87%, 90%, 100%.

The most persistent criticism on the evaluations was that the workload was too heavy, a curious response given that I reduced the reading requirement in 223 from three books and a few chapters in a fourth book in 03-3 and previous semesters to simply three books. In 331, one student complained: "small, weekly assignments exhausted us + were unnecessary." Another wrote: "The weekly assignments were too numerous & took too long to do." Others, however, described the assignments as "useful," "valuable," "helpful," "an integral part of the coarse [sic]." One student wrote: "The weekly reading assignments were a pain, but it made me do all the readings!" I assume this student was referring to the written assignments and imagine that some students will not enjoy fulfilling the writing-intensive course requirements when they take effect as of 06-3.

Students commented appreciatively on my organization, my ability to explain material and course requirements clearly, my interest in and knowledge about the subject matter, my "question & answer method." While some complained that I was "intimidating," "a bit rude," "picked on" students, and got "mad at students for asking questions saying they didn't do the readings," others commented that I was "very helpful," taught "in an encouraging way" and "had a good attitude towards students." The comment that I "encouraged a lot of class discussion" resonated in other evaluations, although in 331 one critic asserted: "good discussion in a bad course." One student in 223 remarked that I was "smart but not well suited to be a teacher." Another in the same course disagreed: "Dr. Pabel is one of the best professors in the history department." My favourite comment was: "good teacher, but hard marker = work harder." Amen!

This page was last updated on 6 January 2006
and has been visited times.