H-Teach is a forum for teaching policy, practices and techniques rather than the subject matter of history. Participants are mostly college teachers. Messages are organized by month with relatively few messages during summer months. Without doing a count, it appears that there were more correspondents in former years. The website contains Messages and a Discussion area. The Discussion area contains messages only from 1994 and 1995 and topics include the teaching of historiography and the use of the first person singular (most teachers did not like it in student essays). A discussion about history standards has a long section about Dr. Lawrence Levine’s article “Clio, Canons, and Culture”, in the Journal of American History. The Message Section during that time period contains a copy of an article by Lynne Chaney criticizing National Standards for United States History.
Message Logs exist from 1993 to the present. A November, 2004 topic is Professor's Politics in Class Discussions. This subject ought to inspire debate but the response consisted of carefully chosen, inoffensive words. There is no real challenge to an opinion. In November 2000, under the topic Teaching Disputed Elections, writers set the record straight on the claim Nixon was robbed of the Illinois election in 1960. The restrained discussion tenor may have something to do with the editing. One comments states ‘Clinton will not want his legacy to remember him as a jerk, the way we (or some of us) remember Bush’. In a later remark, the editor apologizes for not editing the remark stating, ‘The continuing election story is one about which we might any of us whip off a comment that needed a little rewrite, and it is the editor's job to act as safety screener’. Is ‘safety screener’ a new term for censorship or does it imply the editor is saving writers from their own folly?
Another November, 2004 topic was Alternative Learning Styles about non-lecture methods of teaching, a frequent topic. One letter describes the Harkness method where a teacher does virtually nothing. ‘Students initiate the conversation, change the subject, correct each other's information, and engage each other in dialogue.’ In October, 2004 there was similar discussion on Philosophy of Learning Styles mostly addressing alternatives to lectures. One writer had not redesigned his courses to ‘take advantage of engaging learners more effectively’ because he does not have time, and because he ‘gets complaints from students (…usually the very best in the class) who want to learn from the teacher, not from other classmates.’ A responder says the elite group will learn no matter what you do. ‘The rest of the class is the group we need to teach to.’ One commentator mentions presentations by David Pace, Mills Kelly, and Bob Bain at a recent conference. There is discussion about grading standards and how to grade students when they work in groups and about collaborative examinations.
In April, 2004, Differentiated Learning was defined as ‘the practice of using different texts and assignments in a single class, based on the different levels of pupils' abilities, all aimed at the same learning goal.’ This is a difficult approach for struggling without heterogeneous (undemocratic) classes. One teacher says ‘I am not sure how a teacher would implement it and remain sane in a class of more than 10’. In March 2003, there was a similar topic, Teaching Students of Varying Abilities. In a discussion on Assigning Term Papers, mostly high school teachers participated.
Writers worry about students’ lack of ability and inadequate reading skills. The discussion on classroom etiquette shows some history teachers are unconcerned about trivialities. Many teachers approve eating in class, since they can do it too. Some have no objection to visiting children or to tape recording of their class. One person wanted to know some ‘Snappy Comebacks’ when students are talking in class. The consensus is against snappy comebacks and the teacher should talk to the offender privately. There is discussion of The Stare as a method of classroom control. In October 1994, most were against profanity in class although some felt there might be times when it would be acceptable in student writing.
Cheating and plagiarism are discussed often. New technology brings new problems and some teachers prohibited Internet sources to force students into books and avoid downloading of verbiage. In November 2003, a teacher asks for ideas on guidelines to instruct students about the use of sources versus plagiarism. One teacher describes an incident where the faculty believed a student cheated by downloading answers to either a cell phone or a Blackberry. The student probably placed the device between his legs and copied the answers.
The world of new technology is also evident in a question asking for comments on ‘permitting professional note takers to sit in on class and market editions of class notes. One such service has come to Kansas State; it works with the prof. to find an appropriate notetaker; provides the notes to the prof.; provides free notes to disabled students; and guarantees accuracy.’ Surprisingly many had no objection. Some already gave handouts to the students to minimize note-taking and allowed student to listen instead of scrambling to take notes.
Sometimes writers are seeking ideas. For example, there are discussions on the use of maps, the misrepresentation of historical events in films, television documentaries, black English as valid formal speech (most thought it was), reading literature as historians and novels that work well as supplementary class readings, views on the Enola Gay dispute, and not using textbooks to save students money. A November, 1994 topic was the Introductory Graduate Course. This is often a historiography course touching on the philosophy of history and historical methodology. The topic of student assessment of teachers arises several times with concern that expected grade and workload influence student evaluations of faculty teaching. There is discussion of teaching loads and a discussion about ‘Slave Labor in Higher Ed?? The Adjuncts’.
The September, 2001 messages showed an attempt at reasoned reaction to 9/11. There is a message from Mills Kelly who was teaching Western Civilization at GMU. Most teachers who wrote messages dropped their plans and talked about the tragedy and its historical context. One teacher was upset and was shocked others regarded the tragedy a ‘teachable moment’.
A separate section of H-Teach has Course syllabi that mainly focus on undergraduate courses. One syllabus includes as reading Rosenzweig, Roy, Eight Hours for What We Will.
The online discussion works best as a way to get an answer to a specific question such as what books to read or what technique solves a teaching problem. Unlike less literate discussion groups, the responses of history professors are usually lengthy and sometimes thoughtful. There is some real discussion but in general there seems to be a lack of controversy and outright opposition to a point of view. Readers have to be wary of using this site as anything more than what it is; the opinions of a self-selected group willing and able to take the time to express themselves.
http://www.h-net.org/~teach/