In 05-2, I taught Hist. 106 and Hist. 336; in 05-3, Hist. 223 and Hist. 320. I served as Faculty Supervisor of Hist. 338 and Hist. 339 in 05-1 and of Hist. 339 in 05-3. Please note that my "Semesterly Activity" produced, I assume, by Academic Relations omits to list my commitments to Hist. 338 and Hist. 339 in 05-1 (1054).

The course evaluations for 05-2 indicate that students were in general satisfied with the courses and with me as the instructor. 78% of 32 respondents rated Hist. 106 A or B, and 88 % rated my teaching ability as A or B. 87% of 31 respondents rated the tutorials in Hist. 106 as A or B, and 90% of 30 respondents rated my teaching ability as A or B. 86% of 7 respondents rated Hist. 336 as A or B and 86% rated my teaching ability as A.

The ratings for 05-3 are not as high as in 05-2. 76% of 25 respondents rated Hist. 223 A or B, and 92% rated my teaching ability as A or B. 68% of 29 respondents rated Hist. 320 as A or B, and 72% of 29 respondents rated my teaching ability as A or B. The information on the one-page summary of the Teaching Assistant Evaluation for Hist. 320 is completely incorrect. I encourage colleagues to check my own analysis of the data. Instead of 16 valid responses, I found 28. Here are the ratings of the tutorial: A = 10 students (35.7%), B = 9 students (32.1%), C = 8 students (28.6%), D = 1 student (3.6%), and now the ratings of my teaching ability: A = 17 students (60.7%), B = 6 students (21.4%), C = 3 students (10.7%), D = 1 student (3.6%) and F = 1 student (3.6%). That means 67.8% of students rated the tutorial A or B (as distinct from 62% of 16 respondents listed on the one-page summary), and 82.1% rated my teaching ability as A or B (vs. 69% on the one-page summary). I have not correlated the raw data with the one-page summaries in any other instance. There are no data about tutorials in Hist. 223 because I did not receive Teaching Assistant Evaluation forms to distribute to students in this course.

The ratings for Hist. 106 were pleasing, especially since this was probably the last time that I taught the course. Indeed, the ratings were a pleasant surprise since I found it difficult to connect with students, especially in tutorial where they tended to be very quiet. Apart from a student who believed that the course was "very cruel" because in his or her opinion it was too demanding, those who left written comments on the course evaluations enjoyed their experience of Hist. 106. Several commented on my strengths as a lecturer, even the student who noted that I was a "hard marker." I was an "excellent lecturer," a "great teacher," who was "extremely engaging," and whose "enthusiasm is infectious." I was "not boring." I "made the course material interesting," have "a good sense of humor" and am "very animated while teaching." I was pleased to read this comment: "I appreciate and admire your course website, it is very well organized and more interactive than any text books or course websites I've read so far." Another student enjoyed the "use of visuals, music, speeches."

One student in Hist. 106 bluntly stated: "Did not let students discuss. Did not encourage discussion. Stop talking, let students discuss." Others did not accept this assessment. The tutorial was "excellent;" the best that one student ever had. Another student "enjoyed the discussions we had as a group" and asserted that the tutorial "helped prepare for the papers but not the midterm." A classmate believed that the tutorial was "helpful in further understanding of course material." From other written comments, one reads that I was a "good communicator" who "controlled class and steered sessions well," that the atmosphere of the tutorial "encourages dialogues," that my strength was to encourage others "on their ideas." Apart from the student who insisted that I did not allow for discussion, there were two other criticisms in the evaluations of the tutorial. One student believed that I spoke too quickly when giving details, another that the reading requirements were excessive.

From the written comments one call tell that Hist. 336 was fairly well received. Two students were not entirely comfortable with my manner--I can be a "little abrupt" or "daunting"--but this did not stop one of them from pointing out that I communicate effectively and listen to students. Another student made the rather extravagant claim that I am "one of the best professors that SFU-History Department has to offer." The same person said that Hist. 336 "was one of my favourite courses thus far." I was pleased to read the comment from another evaluator: "I learned more in this class than I have learned in most others, but had to work for it," even if the same person wrote that "the marking scheme seemed too stringent at times." The student who thought I was "a little abrupt" appreciated the structure of the course, its informative nature, and the weekly written assignments.

One disgruntled student, who valued the "organized syllabus" disagreed with a classmate's opinion that I communicated effectively and listened to students. Instead, I was "rude" and made students "feel stupid." No one else went that far. The same student noted: "He was completely unhelpful with my assignments. He hadn't even read my primary source yet he still ripped it apart." I do not know what this student means by "unhelpful." I commented extensively on all assignments, including the weekly written assignments, pointing out to students how they could improve their written analysis.

05-3 was a difficult semester for me. I was not always in the best of health and keenly felt the strain of single parenting for half of the semester. While I had taught the Reformation as Hist. 403 several times, revising it as Hist. 320 with a completely different reading list was a great challenge. I enjoyed redesigning the course and profited from the work that I invested in the course, which included publishing electronically a series of mini-lectures on the required reading to guide students through essential material and provide examples of analysis for their own assignments. I also designed the course to enhance student participation. Each class (lecture and tutorial) from Weeks 4 to 8 inclusive, two or three students handed in a short paper in which they analyzed a chapter of the textbook, Diarmaid MacCulloch's Reformation, a long but new and very well received synthesis, or of a journal article. Students were required to base their analysis on a central historical question suggested by the reading. I gathered these questions together at the beginning of each class and wrote them out on the overhead. These questions became the basis for class discussions. I proceeded Socratically, asking these and related questions to establish a grasp of essential factual information and to examine the significance of this information in light of larger themes. It became clear to me a few weeks into the semester that this project was not succeeding because, in my view, students were not keeping up with the reading. During one class I asked how many had read an assigned article. Only eight out of more than thirty students indicated that they had. Students were aware of my frustration. I asked them what I should do to make the course more enjoyable. I followed the suggestions that I received, namely to begin by summarizing the material covered in the textbook before asking questions, but still it was difficult to elicit discussion.

Now that I have read the written comments on the evaluations, I see that many students did not want to have discussions. They wanted conventional lectures. That is what they paid for. Two other recurring complaints were that the test and first substantial paper were due in the same week and that I am intimidating. A few accolades seep through the criticisms in the course and instructor evaluations: I was a "very strong communicator and very fair" as well as "an excellent professor." A third student wrote: "Excellent class! Excellent prof!" A few more positive comments appear in the teaching assistant evaluations.

The criticisms by and large reveal a conflict about pedagogical method. I believe that by the time a student enrolls in a 300-level course, he or she ought to take a more self-directed approach to learning. Students cannot engage history critically if they expect me to tell them what to think. Students can certainly read books on their own, as one student commented, but they need not benefit from my expertise simply by absorbing my commentary. I see my job as getting students to think, and the best way to do this is to ask questions, not provide answers, many of which are open to debate. I conclude with two comments. (1) I will consider ways of balancing my Socratic approach with a more conventional method of lecturing. (2) The syllabus for Hist. 320 clearly laid out the expectations for the course, and I explained these in detail at the first class. What students got in Hist. 320 was what I promised to deliver. If, to use the consumerist mentality evident in some of the evaluations, they did not like the product the way it was advertised, then why did they buy it?

The written comments in Hist. 223 were far more positive, and I take a Socratic approach in that course too. The difference is that Hist. 320 is more demanding because I required students to participate more formally through written assignments until Week 8 and group presentations afterwards. As in the evaluations in Hist. 320, one encounters complaints from students in Hist. 223 that I am a hard marker (for which I do not apologize) and that I am intimidating. I note that one student asserted that my "reputation as a difficult marker is unfounded." This student thought: "He is a brilliant professor who is good at what he does. …Questions were always encouraged and he was even willing to abandon his tutorial structure for the good of the class." Others believed that I have a "good personality" and "can relate to students," that I was a "good speaker" who "really engaged the class," "extremely entertaining," "a very interesting professor," "an entertaining, knowledgeable, firm, and fair professor," and an "excellent teacher," who should be "highly valued for his teaching ability and his devotion and extensive knowledge for this subject." This last student looked forward to taking another course with me as did the student who said that I was "extremely interesting and very witty" and who also "greatly enjoyed" my lectures and tutorials.

This page was last updated on 30 December 2006
and has been visited times.