My aim throughout my course was to move my students from thinking about history as a series of facts to be memorized (which many students and indeed scholars in non-historical fields still think in college) toward seeing history as a mode of cognition or understanding (see Louis Mink). Although all historians agree that this is the case, the way traditional history courses are taught, by lecture and with exams requiring memorization, reinforces novice expectations. While we TELL students otherwise, our ACTIONS often don't require students to do something other memorize and display (see Barton and Levstik). In this course I set out to do things differently. In one sense, I wanted to expose students to what experts do. However, in another sense, what I wanted to accomplish with the students was different from professional practice. Historians are generally solo practitioners, engaged in virtual conversations. Instead, I had students working together, because they are, for the most part, not going to become historians, and because the ability to reason through a problem together is a skill they will need as modern citizens. For this aspect of the course, the wiki pages available were crucial. I didn't want someone to have the draft of the paper, which would then be unavailable to other students, or for revisions to criss-cross each other. I wanted a virtual discussion and on-going writing process similar to that used by professional writers and what I've used in my own work. As a rule, students didn't like working on the wiki, but it accomplished what I hoped it would. Student report was that this class was different from anything else they had ever done. Some of them were clear about not liking it--one student didn't understand why I didn't just have the class read Wikipedia about the crusades because they could "learn more." (But what, you ask?) Others complained that the work was very difficult, that they had to pay close attention to what they were reading, that they didn't know going in what resources they were going to have to draw on (just like life). Persistence and attendance made a difference, because only participants in each in-class assignment got credit for the assignment, and these were pretty much daily fare. However, I also had a history major thank me after one of the assignments, in which the groups read three accounts of two incidents during the Third Crusade, had to decide what had happened, and justify their decisions with reference to the evidence. Most of the groups did well on these assignments, while one group not only had virtually perfect attendance, but turned in papers of deep thoughtfulness and care. Not every student got with the program. One group of able students got together and decided the minimum they needed to do to get a B. But in most groups I got a very high quality of work, both in class and in outside assignments. I did something different, and on the whole it worked.
