Teaching in Higher Education

ISSN: 1356-2517 (Print) 1470-1294 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20

Developing History Students' Skills in the

Transition to University

Alan Booth

To cite this article: Alan Booth (2001) Developing History Students' Skills in the Transition to
University, Teaching in Higher Education, 6:4, 487-503, DOI: 10.1080/13562510120078036

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510120078036

Published online: 25 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 463

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cthe20
Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2001

Developing History Students’ Skills

in the Transition to University
ALAN BOOTH
School of History and Art History, University of Nottingham, Lenton Grove,
Nottingham N97 2RD, UK

ABSTRACT With growing numbers and diversity of students, as well as demands from
employers and students themselves, many humanities and social science tutors have become
increasingly aware of the importance of developing students’ skills. The Ž rst year of university
is a particularly important point of intervention, not only to ensure the successful transition to
degree level work, but to create the foundations for learning and skills development in subsequent
years of disciplinary study and beyond. There is still, however, often a lack of conŽ dence on the
part of subject tutors concerning the introduction of skills to students whose primary motivation
for study is discipline-based. This paper describes a practical approach to this problem in history,
but one easily transferable to other disciplines. It combines subject and skills in a way which
engages student interest, and encourages students to become more conŽ dent in a variety of
practical skills, as well as more re exive in relation to their subject and the ways in which they
approach learning in it.

Skills and History

In recent years the language of skills, and particularly transferable skills, has risen
sharply up the higher education agenda in many countries. However, its ascent has
not gone uncontested, not least in the traditionally independent disciplinary cultures
of the humanities (Cole, 1993; Barnett, 1994; Assiter, 1995; Gregory, 1997). Thus,
in Britain, fears have been expressed that an emphasis on skills threatens the
educational and primarily intellectual focus of a History education in the interests of
vocational ‘training’, resulting in both fragmentation of the learning experience and
a potential loss of disciplinary autonomy over the curriculum (History in the
Universities Defence Group, 1997, 1998). In a long-established, traditional disci-
pline with fears for its future, such anxieties are understandable. Nonetheless, as one
commentator on the state of British university history teaching recently pointed out:
‘most universities now realise … the need to help students to learn the skills that will
make them employable in later life’ (Barker, 1997). Indeed, a growing number of
books have emerged to help history students to develop key skills, and identifying
the precise nature of the skills history graduates should possess has been a focus of
the recent History benchmarking process in the UK (Abbott, 1996; Black &
Macraild, 1997; Pleuger, 1997; History Subject Benchmarking Group, 2000).

ISSN 1356-2517 (print)/ISSN 1470-1294 (online)/01/040487-17 Ó 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/13562510120078036
488 A. Booth

Increasing numbers of tutors have begun to point out that there is no necessary
polarisation between skills and subject (see Jordanova, 2000; Booth & Hyland,
2000). They argue that in history education, skills and knowledge development are
inter-dependent, and that skills are best honed in relation to the substance of the
subject. A clear articulation of skills to be developed in degree programmes and
modules, and the explicit addressing of these in course delivery and in assessment
processes, is not only educationally valuable per se, but more likely to make history
appear relevant and attractive to students, few of whom become professional
historians. Such an explicit approach can help to demonstrate to students that they
possess a wide range of useful skills and underline the utility of what is a non-
vocational subject. It can help to motivate them both as historians and learners more
generally.
For most practising history tutors, theoretical debates concerning the nature of
skills and the value of explicit skills teaching over traditional ‘implicit’ approaches
are of less signiŽ cance than the practical needs of teaching today’s students. In many
countries, the transition to university History degree programmes is a matter of
concern (Sheppard, 1993; Stearns, 1993; Cruse, 1994). Not only does an increas-
ingly numerous and diverse student population lack some of the skills traditionally
demanded of students entering degree programmes in the subject, but in an
environment where staff–student ratios have markedly worsened the need for stu-
dents to possess the ability to learn independently has become a priority. In Britain,
as elsewhere, pressures of syllabus coverage and the emphasis upon results conspire
to produce a transmissive approach to teaching and learning. As Fines and Nichol
observe: ‘[A-level history] is teacher dominated, lecture plus notes and essays; its
consequences a passive dependency culture’ (Fines & Nichol, 1994, p. 19). Here, a
relatively narrow range of skills are honed carefully and intensively, particularly
those of assimilating the spoken word, organising (often pre-digested) factual infor-
mation and reproducing it under examination conditions (Lang, 1990; Newton &
Newton, 1998). Equally, other important skills are neglected, including oral presen-
tation, collaborative work, re exivity and responsibility for one’s own learning
(Winstanley, 1992). Even the most successful school students consequently feel
most conŽ dent in taking notes from lectures and organising their notes, but least at
giving an oral presentation and contributing in seminars (Booth, 1997). Whilst these
can usually cope with most routine tasks demanded of them, conŽ dence in respond-
ing  exibly to new challenges is often lacking. ‘ConŽ dence is three parts of success,
and self-conŽ dence is what so many sixth formers dramatically lack … [Students]
must see themselves as improving, as doing better, and they must be less fearful of
failure if this is to happen’ (Fines & Nichol, 1994, p. 87).
How History departments decide to address these issues will clearly vary
according to institutional and departmental aims and objectives and student proŽ le.
However, for most there are likely to be some common priorities. The induction and
socialisation of students into the culture of teaching in a department and, by
extension, that of the discipline more generally, is clearly one such area. In the
transition to university study students often feel a sense of isolation and abandon-
ment that is contrasted with the more supportive framework of sixth-form or college.
 Developing History Students’ Skills 489

As one Ž nal year student observed: ‘You are left very much on your own at
university compared to school. I felt stranded and personal tutors don’t seem to take
much of an interest in you’ (Raaheim et al., 1991; Earwaker, 1992; Booth, 1993;
Briggs, 1994). They need to understand as soon as possible the rules, standards and
expectations of their chosen department, if a misalignment between tutors’ expecta-
tions and students’ understanding of these expectations is not to result in de-
motivation or the reinforcement of habitual learning strategies (Zuber-Skeritt,
1987).
So, too, the opportunity to enhance those skills directly relevant to effective
performance throughout the degree programme and beyond is essential. Such skills
might be categorised in brief as follows (for fuller discussion of history skills see:
Booth & Hyland, 2000; History Subject Benchmarking Group, 2000; Jordanova,
2000; for alternative modes of classiŽ cation see: Guirdham & Tyler, 1992; Gibbs et
al., 1994; Association of Graduate Recruiters, 1995).
1. Basic study skills, such as researching material, reading strategies, taking notes
and, especially, essay writing, which still forms the basis of most history
assessment practices.
2. High level intellectual skills, such as the ability to sift and synthesise large
amounts of information, adopt a systematic, critical approach to evidence,
create one’s own insights and interpretations on the basis of a rigorous
comparison of evidence and opinion on different sides of an issue, and an
appreciation of the contextual and therefore contingent, nature of subject
knowledge. In a more subject-speciŽ c sense this also involves a sensitivity to
the complexity, ambiguity and often fragmentary nature of historical evidence,
an ability to compare and contrast the variety of historical opinion on a
particular issue, an awareness of historiography more generally, and a critical
re exivity in relation to the discipline itself.
3. Communication skills, such as the ability to express oneself clearly and cogently,
both in writing and verbally, and work collaboratively. Communication is also
clearly related to personal skills of active listening, responding, networking and
so on. It can also involve skills such as the ability to use communications and
information technology.
4. Personal skills, such as the ability to work independently and  exibly, take
initiatives, listen actively, negotiate and so on. Particularly important here are
the self-conŽ dence and self-awareness that underpin the successful develop-
ment of all skills and learning more generally.
In addition to these skills, students need to adopt more active modes of learning
generally. University teachers frequently comment on the passivity and unadventur-
ous nature of Ž rst year history undergraduates, both in seminars and in module
choices where, following the dominant A-level syllabus, the twentieth century
dominates (Lang, 1990; Fitzgerald & Hodgkinson, 1994). The term active learning
is used to emphasise that learning is fundamentally an active process best facilitated
when learners are directly engaged in discovering knowledge for themselves, rather
than being expected merely to process information transmitted to them. It therefore
490 A. Booth

emphasises the need for students to take responsibility for their own learning and
become more independent learners, able to think critically and creatively, and apply
their knowledge, skills and understanding  exibly in a variety of contexts. It also
underlines the social nature of learning and the importance of interaction between
students in fostering a wide range of subject and transferable skills (Denicolo et al.,
1992; Entwistle et al., 1992; Meyers & Jones, 1993; Marton et al., 1997). Active
learning is therefore transformative in intent, encouraging students to become aware
of the involvement of the whole person in the learning process, and see the potential
for development not only in relation to their subject, but also in relation to
themselves as learners and individuals.
At the centre of this type of learning is a re exive capacity which involves the
ability to re ect critically upon one’s discipline, oneself and one’s society as a means
of transcending past habits and understandings (King & Kitchener, 1994; Barnett,
1997; Brockbank & McGill, 1998). The subject benchmarking report for History in
the UK has recognised the importance of re ection, suggesting that all history
students should develop re exivity—that is ‘be expected to re ect critically on the
nature of their discipline, its social rationale, its theoretical underpinnings and its
intellectual standing’ (History Subject Benchmarking Group, 2000, p. 4). One
might go farther than this, of course, and suggest that re exivity in history might also
include encouraging students to question, and challenge the premises and processes
of the discipline, and examine critically their own rationale for studying it. Historical
study provides students with an important means by which to make sense of
themselves, and as Southgate points out, ‘we need, as historians no less than as
human beings, some self awareness, some understanding of what is we are trying to
do, and of why we are trying to do it’ (1996, p. 1). This includes critical re ection
not only on the subject matter but upon the experience of learning the subject as a
yardstick for deciding how one might go further. In describing the objectives of such
a transformatory learning, Brockbank and McGill write:
The learner is able to be critical in relation to the domains of knowledge,
self and the world, where the learner is able not only to embrace knowledge
but also to bring self, including emotion and action, into the learning
process. The learner is effective within her discipline, as well as critical of
her discipline without, as well as crossing disciplines in acknowledgement
of the relativity of knowledge. She is able to be in a re exive position about
learning how she learns. (Brockbank & McGill, 1998, p. 4)
Facilitating the development of the range of skills required by History students
is complex. There are many obstacles, not least the inadequate preparation of
school History, anxieties resulting from the transition to university, the transmissive
nature of much teaching in higher education, as opposed to what is espoused,
and time pressures in modular systems. David Boud, however, offers a starting
point by pointing out the importance of exploring experience as the foundation
of learning (Boud et al., 1987; Weil & McGill, 1989; Boud et al., 1993; Boud &
Miller, 1996). Encouraging students to engage with their personal and collective
experience of studying in the discipline in order to recognise the resources they
 Developing History Students’ Skills 491

already have, re-evaluate and progress, offers a powerful strategy for students at a
point of fundamental transition. Through such a critical exploration students might
become more sophisticated learners of their subject and the skills it involves, and
more self-aware and conŽ dent learners generally, more  exible and adventurous as
well as more critically re ective, more receptive to theoretical perspectives and new
ideas. What follows is an account of an ongoing attempt which began in the
University of Nottingham in the academic session 1992–93, to assist Ž rst year
students to become more skilled as historians and as learners.

‘Learning History’: programme structure and content

Learning History consists of two semester-length linked modules, and is compulsory
for all Ž rst year undergraduates in single and joint honours History, at present
around 170 in each academic year most of whom are traditional age entrants and
almost equally balanced between male and female students. As such, it forms the
backbone of the Ž rst year degree programme of 12 modules, and currently com-
prises ten 1-hour weekly sessions in each semester. The structure of the programme
is outlined in Table I.

TABLE I. Learning history: structure and content

Semester 1

1. Learning history: introduction

2. Reading history (1)
3. History in the making: writing history
4. Learning history through discussion (1)
5. History live: giving a presentation (1)
6. History live: giving a presentation (2)
7. History in the making: writing history (2)
8. Learning history through discussion (2)
9. Reading history (2)
10. Degree-level history: reviewing your progress
11. Assessment and feedback

Semester 2
1. Project work in history: introduction
2. Team meetings with tutor
3. Progress meeting 1: research methods
4. Team meetings with tutor
5. Progress meeting 2: building a bibliography
6. Team meetings with tutor
7. Progress meeting 3: presentation of results
8. Group oral presentation of project
9. Group oral presentation of project
10. Group oral presentation of project
11. Review of the project: working in a team
492 A. Booth

Seminar 1 introduces students to studying History at university, including

degree course requirements, and departmental rules and regulations. The session
outlines the aims and objectives, teaching and assessment methods of the Learning
History modules, and how these modules Ž t into the degree as a whole. Using
responses to an experiential questionnaire on previous experience of studying
History and completed in preparation, students begin the process of working in
small groups exploring expectations of studying History at university, anticipated
differences between school and university History, and the skills historians need.
Here, some common underlying conceptions of learning and of the subject are
revealed, not least assumptions about the importance of objectivity, the ultimate
attainability of truth, and the necessity of constructing History through the accumu-
lation of ‘facts’. A follow-up exercise encourages students to monitor their individual
learning style, and re ect upon their learning priorities for the semester.
Seminar 2 is intended to encourage students to use history booklists effectively,
consider how best to approach reading in the subject, and re ect on the challenges
of reading history. They are asked to summarise a journal article on post-modern
critiques of historical method from the booklist on one side of a record card, and
work in pairs to discuss these, and what they enjoyed and found difŽ cult, followed
by general discussion and advice from the tutor on reading strategies using the
available study skills literature such as Abbott, 1996; Black and Macraild, 1997.
First year module bibliographies are used to discuss how to make best use of them
in approaching seminar and essay assignments.
Seminar 3 involves essay-writing strategies. Students explore their previous
experience and habits of writing an essay, beginning with a short exercise brain-
storming the origins of information and evidence used at A-level. This inevitably
reveals that much of their learning revolved around what their teacher prescribed:
either from dictated notes, lectures, extracts from books and articles or recommen-
dations of what to read in the library. They quickly realise that their ‘own’ opinions
are formed from the re exive discourse of others, and this is followed by more
detailed work in sub-groups on factors in uencing the construction of historical
accounts (epistemological, methodological, personal, etc.). They then discuss in
small groups their marking of a sample History essay relating to issues of truth and
evidence in History, which has formed part of their preparation and investigate
together what constitutes a ‘good’ History essay using departmental guidelines and
marking criteria.
Seminar 4 focuses upon discussion skills. In preparation, students are asked to
re ect upon their experience of History seminars, both at school and at university,
and note what facilitates effective discussion and what are the main obstacles to
effective discussion. This is then used for general discussion of what makes for
effective seminars in History and what makes for good seminar leadership. There is
also preparation through discussion of video clips of making an oral presentation
which forms the next two sessions.
Seminars 5 and 6 involve 5-minute individual oral presentations. This is on a
topic related to the uses and value of history, both as a discipline and to themselves.
The presentation provides an opportunity to practice speaking to an audience, and
 Developing History Students’ Skills 493

allows the students not only to take their thinking forward on the literature, and also
to re ect in a more personal and creative fashion on their purposes in studying
history. Following the presentations students re ect in pairs upon the experience,
then explore together what were the best features of the presentations and what
makes for an effective oral presentation in History.
Seminar 7 returns to the issue of the writing of history. Students consider the
nature of historical writing and post-modern perspectives on it, and prepare to write
an essay on the topic from a list of titles. They also prepare in teams (for, against and
jury) for a debate—at present on the motion ‘Postmodernism diverts attention from
the real lives and sufferings of people in the past’, a quotation from Richard Evans’
recent book In Defence of History (1997).
Seminar 8 involves the debate, followed by discussion of the structuring of
debate in History, mobilisation of evidence, the importance of active listening and
effective discussion skills. These are brought out in small and whole group dis-
cussion after the debate, where the teams consider the strengths and weaknesses of
the debate, and discuss with the tutor key issues in seminar work, such as active
participation and listening skills.
Seminar 9 is a progress review session, using the experiential questionnaire
completed at the beginning of the programme as a means of comparison of views on
history and the skills of the historian. Students re ect on how far their views have
changed, what have been the most useful parts of the course to them and why, and
what they feel they have learnt and how that learning occurred. This seminar also
provides the opportunity for them to evaluate the teaching on the module. It Ž nally
also takes students through issues concerning revision and examinations.
Seminar 10 is allocated to short one-to-one interviews to monitor progress
and provide individual feedback. Students complete a self-assessment of their
progress across the module as a whole. This provides an opportunity for more
dialogue on particular individual issues, including reading, essay writing, seminar
participation and so on, as well as issues of modernism and postmodernism. In
general, it allows for some positive reinforcement from the tutor over the whole
range of topics covered.
Semester 2 involves group project work on topics of students’ choice, all of which
are related to the broad subject focus of the programme. Working in teams of Ž ve
or six (in our experience the optimum number for group project work), the skills
developed in Semester 1 are practised further, but with particular emphasis upon
team work, and the research skills necessary in subsequent years’ projects and
dissertations. There is thus a further shift towards more independent learning, using
the supportive framework of the project team more than the tutor as was the case in
Semester 1. The group project also provides another opportunity for students to
practice delivering an oral presentation—this time, however, as part of a group
presentation of project results and Ž ndings. A wide variety of projects have been
completed over the years. Particularly popular are media based topics, especially on
the role of propaganda in various historical contexts, the uses of Ž lm in history,
history and its relationship to heritage, the work of key Ž gures in historiography,
teaching and learning issues, such as history in the national curriculum, surveys of
494 A. Booth

tutors’ attitudes on teaching history and so on. Products have ranged from
traditional written projects to reports and surveys to audio and videotapes
This combining of subject and skills offers a means of engaging and motivating
students whose primary academic rationale is studying the subject itself. Failure to
acknowledge this subject orientation is often a principal cause of the failure of skills
initiatives (see Gibbs, 1981; Martin & Ramsden, 1987; Zuber-Skerritt, 1987;
Entwistle et al., 1992; Gibbs et al., 1994; Kaldeway & Korthaven, 1995; Norton &
Crowley, 1995; Bloxham, 1997). The programme structure is intended to allow for
progression in tasks and subject matter. Skills practised advance from the more
familiar, such as reading tasks, to the less so, such as oral presentation and group
project work. The subject matter begins with general discussion of personal experi-
ence of learning and what it means to be a historian, and advances to more
sophisticated discussions of historical truth and evidence based on the burgeoning
literature in this Ž eld. So, too, the seminars in semester one attempt to balance
the development of practical skills with a more theoretical engagement with post-
modern challenges to traditional historical methodologies.
The focus on post-modernism and history performs a particularly useful set of
functions. It is discipline-focused and intellectually challenging, which helps to
de ect at least two common student criticisms of skills courses. It also focuses upon
issues of interpretation, truth and purpose in history, and so has the potential to
encourage students to re ect critically not only on their own discipline, and es-
pecially the contingent nature of historical knowledge, but also on their own
conceptions of the discipline and what studying it means to them. In exposing
students to post-modern critiques of the discipline it also raises questions relevant to
contemporary society and individual perceptions of reality and sense of place, and
provides an opportunity to introduce students to both history theory and issues of
historiography. Moreover, as an unfamiliar topic to almost all students there can be
no falling back onto material acquired at A-level, though too much divergence from
experience can create problems and the relevance of the programme therefore has to
be spelled out very clearly.

Teaching, Learning and Assessment

Key principles in the teaching and learning on these modules are active partici-
pation, re ection and dialogue. Students are encouraged to take responsibility for
their own learning within an environment that emphasises collaborative learning.
They work in groups and teams of various sizes, which allows them to develop a
wide range of skills, as well as get to know colleagues—an important issue for Ž rst
year students. Here, safety is an important issue, and tasks within each seminar are
progressed so that whole class discussion follows from work in smaller groups where
students feel more comfortable. Pace is also important if re ection is to be encour-
aged, and a balance needs to be struck between activity and the need for space to
re ect. Variety of tasks is essential to allow students to examine the issues from a
variety of perspectives and sustain interest, and it is important to have teaching
accommodation which allows for this  exibility, not least the availability of chairs
 Developing History Students’ Skills 495

which are not Ž xed. Humour and the use of present-day analogies are particularly
useful in making the complex and often rather abstract nature of postmodernism
more relevant and interesting.
Throughout the programme the importance of relationship in learning is
acknowledged. For history students the quality of the tutor–student relationship is a
key hallmark of quality teaching and learning. Teachers are rated by history students
as overwhelmingly the most important in uence on their learning development, and
the qualities rated most highly by Ž rst year students are enthusiasm, concern for
students, demonstrated by approachability, willingness to listen and clear and
supportive guidance, as well as subject expertise (Booth, 1997). In Learning History
the tutor’s role is essentially facilitative. The teacher works through dialogue with
students, creating a supportive environment which helps to reduce the impulse to
resort to habitual behaviour in the face of new and often complex ideas. The
emphasis upon facilitation is not, therefore, a substitute for rigour, but a means to
it. Encouraging students to challenge accepted orthodoxy, and habits of mind and
learning is at the core of the programme and, as Brockbank and McGill point out,
‘the need for challenging assumptions and confronting embedded suppositions is a
basic requirement for re ection’ (1998, p. 150).
Assessment is an integral part of the teaching and learning process, and a
powerful in uence upon students’ approaches to learning (Brown & Knight, 1994;
Brown et al., 1997). The fact that these modules are of equal weighting with other
history modules in determining the overall Ž rst year average mark encourages
students to take them seriously. There are no examinations on Learning History,
partly because students already possess considerable examination experience and
will sit them on other Ž rst year modules, but also as formal examinations were
considered less relevant on such a re ective, process-orientated course. Continuous
assessment also permits a strong forward momentum to be maintained via regular
assessed tasks punctuating the semester, and this is important in helping beginning
students to establish a settled rhythm of work. In Semester 1, students write a short
written report on a reading assignment (15%), on the seminar debate (15%) and on
the oral presentation with similar guidelines (20%). A standard essay counts for 40%
of the overall assessment. They also complete a self-assessment of their contribution
to the seminar programme as a whole and areas for personal improvement, and this
counts for 10% and forms a basis for discussion in the Ž nal personal review session
of each semester. These percentages have evolved over time in consultation with the
students. On all of these pieces of work written feedback is provided as an aid to
further re ection and planning. In Semester 2 the formal assessment comprises an
annotated bibliography and project plan (15%), Ž nal written (4000 word) group
report (50%), group presentation (25%), and a portfolio of the group minutes of
meetings and plan or diary of the process, with individual self-assessment (10%).
There are also regular progress meetings with tutors on the group projects, for which
students have to submit minutes of their meetings, plans and an agenda of issues
they wish to discuss.
Throughout the assessment process there is therefore an attempt to balance
formative and summative elements of assessment, with particular attention paid to
496 A. Booth

feedback and personal review commensurate with an essentially developmental

programme. In the grading process considerable emphasis is placed upon re ection
both in relation to skills development and to the discipline itself. Moreover, in
encouraging students to adopt a high level of re exive practice we have inevitably
been forced to re ect more ourselves, and this experience is described in the
following section.

The Teaching Experience

Encouraging Ž rst-year history students to focus upon such skills as teamwork,
listening, oral presentation and so on, and to adopt more re ective practices is no
easy matter. In these areas, most students are as inexperienced as they are sceptical
and anxious. For tutors it has been a challenging though illuminating experience,
requiring the development of both a variety of facilitation skills and of the intricacies
of post-modern approaches to their discipline. Moreover, as one tutor has remarked:
‘Each year it has changed more than most of my other modules’. Perhaps partly
because of this the tutors have become a close and supportive team. Other factors
have also contributed to this. First, enthusiastic and committed tutors were chosen
to teach on it to give it initial momentum, though as the programme has become
more established it has been possible to introduce some input from more experi-
enced postgraduate research students. Secondly, the regularity of meetings, particu-
larly in the early years of the course when tutors met together at least twice a
semester and could frequently be found arguing about the merits or otherwise of
postmodernism. Thirdly, everyone has had a real input into its continuing develop-
ment through regular end of semester reviews. Fourthly, a substantial Tutor Guide
provides clear instructions for each seminar, including aims and objectives, and a
detailed description of learning tasks and key points. This ensures the operation of
common standards and allows replacement tutors to be brought into the course with
a minimum of disruption.
In a recent review of teaching these modules, the following points were made.
Most notably tutors felt that it had made them think more clearly about the purposes
of a history education and the skills needed by history students, and provided
insights into Ž rst year students’ perspectives on teaching and learning, and the
different ways they learn in lectures, seminars and project work. This, in turn, had
enabled the reŽ nement of teaching on their other mainstream modules, and gener-
ated a more co-operative relationship with students early in their degree programme,
rather than, as so often happens, only towards the end. It had also made tutors
re ect more on how they themselves approached learning tasks and all had been
motivated to attend university staff development events to improve aspects of their
teaching. The emphasis on skills had also made tutors think more carefully about the
links between studying history and lifelong learning, while the focus on post-
modernism had made everyone re-think their own conceptions of History. Some
tutors reported that this had been useful in their academic research and made them
more comfortable with theory. Overall, they expressed themselves particularly
pleased at seeing students increase in conŽ dence in some key practical tasks, an
 Developing History Students’ Skills 497

observation corroborated by tutors on more mainstream modules especially with

regard to the quality of essay writing and oral presentations. This has had advantages
for subsequent years of the degree programme as a whole, as in a modular,
semesterised system there is little time to train students in assessed tasks or, indeed,
to allow them the luxury of practice before a task is formally assessed.
Inevitably, many mistakes have been made, not least perhaps an initial failure
to inform all colleagues clearly enough of the details of the course, which added to
the suspicion inevitably felt by some. This was addressed by several seminars for
staff explaining the programme and its progress, and how they could co-operate,
alongside a handout guide for colleagues teaching on the mainstream Ž rst year
survey courses. Despite stringent efforts to match the course to student needs, we
failed initially to get the balance between skills and intellectual challenge quite right,
and this was adjusted through increasing the intellectual element and the level of
reading required. A session on time management proved unpopular for being
somewhat mechanistic and was replaced by a handout. In the eagerness to encour-
age participation and re ection there were initially sometimes too many activities
involving the students drawing up lists of criteria, and too much self-assessment.
The amount of self-assessment was therefore scaled down, and the balance of
assessment weighting in semester one re-worked to re ect the amount of work
required for each task (at Ž rst all tasks were weighted evenly). Greater choice of
essay topics has also been introduced. An ambitious learning diary in Semester 1
proved particularly unpopular and was removed, though the portfolio of project
group minutes and other individual re ections in semester two serves a similar
function. Finally, classes were initially scheduled for 2 hours per fortnight, which
sometimes tested students’ stamina given their previous experience. In all these
changes student feedback played a powerful role, and their experience is discussed
in the following section.

The Student Experience

As with many skills programmes, the exact impact of Learning History is difŽ cult to
measure with any precision, particularly given that it only comprises two out of 12
Ž rst year modules and that it has several aims. However, after 6 years a large archive
of qualitative information has been collected from questionnaires, student self-
assessments and feedback sessions with each student, and this, alongside our own
observation and sharing of experiences in regular review meetings and other tutors’
comments, suggests that students do become much more comfortable with the
range of tasks expected of them in subsequent years of study, more competent in a
range of subject-speciŽ c and transferable skills, and more re exive in relation to their
subject.
From these various sources it is clear that there is often initial suspicion about
the notion of a skills programme, anxiety about some of the tasks (most notably the
oral presentation), lack of sympathy for re ective approaches and a resistance to
theory. It would be fair to say that for the majority the initial dominant underlying
mood is one of scepticism, but a willingness to co-operate, a small minority
498 A. Booth

demonstrating a more deeply-rooted resistance. This suspicion, however, generally

gives way to a kinder assessment during the course of Semester 1. With some
exceptions, inevitable in a programme that has to be taken by every history student,
most students feel that the modules have helped them to gain greater conŽ dence
across a range of tasks that are essential to the study of history at an advanced level.
Many refer especially to their fear and subsequent satisfaction in being able to
deliver an oral presentation, but many also compliment the clarity of the programme
of seminars, and the relaxed and supportive environment for discussion. The
challenge of thinking about the nature of history is regarded as difŽ cult, but
interesting and relevant, and students often remark that it has made them think
about their subject in new ways, and re ect upon their rationale for studying it. The
following represent the range of student comments:
Whilst I was, initially, very cynical about the course—I didn’t see it as
necessary—I’ve found it very useful and extremely interesting. The work is
challenging, and I have enjoyed the seminars, especially the debate on
‘facts’ and ‘interpretation’.
The course was a good transfer between A-level and what is expected at
degree level. The course was informative and helped me increase my
understanding of history, but also encouraged an informal atmosphere and
I was able to get to know the other group members. It also provided a
chance to test a number of skills like essay writing, seminar work and
presentations and then get useful feedback on them. It all really helped me
cope with the challenges of the Ž rst term, and it laid the groundwork for
forthcoming work.
The essay was intellectually challenging, and philosophical—and while
difŽ cult, I found it interesting, especially as I haven’t really looked at
history in this way before. Overall the course has been good fun, challeng-
ing and thought-provoking.
This course has probably been the best one I’ve had this semester. The
seminars all had a good atmosphere, so it did not feel intimidating to speak
in them. The work was interesting, and made me think about subjects that
I hadn’t really thought about properly before, but were useful when
thought about!
This course has been very well structured and contains interesting topics.
Every member of the group has had opportunities to participate but no-one
has been forced to speak. The group has been split up and we have all
worked with new people. The variety and innovative seminars has made
this a very interesting module. It acts as a really good introduction to new
aspects of history and to the degree course as a whole.
The presentation, though I hated doing it, I feel was very useful—it
developed my conŽ dence in that area, so that I know I will feel more
conŽ dent in doing it next time.
 Developing History Students’ Skills 499

The fact that I had to speak. I’m more conŽ dent now, and as a result Ž nd
it easier to talk in other seminars. The course made me think about the
nature of history, something I hadn’t previously considered. This makes a
refreshing change from learning about dates and events. Generally I appre-
ciated the opportunity to express my views without thinking that I might
have got it wrong.

The philosophical side was very stimulating and enjoyable. The practical
side was undoubtedly useful but personally I didn’t enjoy it so much. The
course was very useful in increasing conŽ dence, and an understanding of
what was expected of us in the department—with regard to seminars
especially. It also helped in enabling me to look at the other modules in the
context of history and historiography, and hopefully be more objective.

Practice at giving presentations was useful for work in other tutorials. The
course also gave me a better understanding of the uses and usefulness of
history. It helped me realise why I liked history in the Ž rst place and the
examination of what history requires helped me improve my essays.

Conclusions
What follows are some lessons gleaned from the experience of designing and
teaching Learning History. Creating the conditions for student skills development in
their Ž rst year at university is not a straightforward matter. Simply teaching students
skills techniques will not necessarily make them skilful in their learning, any more
than asking students to re ect on their subject will necessarily make them re exive.
Rather to be effective skills development demands close attention to some optimal
balances in programme design and delivery. In these Ž ne balances lies the difference
between walking the skills tightrope as a subject teacher and falling from it.

Students and Tutors

In teaching skills a student-centred focus is a necessity. This involves Ž rstly an
appreciation of student needs, expectations and experience and the ways in which
they learn best in the subject. Students bring with them a set of attitudes, beliefs,
assumptions and fears about learning. It is important to recognise these and the
signiŽ cance given by students to relationship in the learning process. The tutor’s
role, therefore, becomes that of facilitator, supporting and encouraging students,
and providing the conditions in which they might practice skills, whether practical
or intellectual, with as little anxiety as possible. In all of this dialogue is at a premium
and this requires not only respect for students as people, but also explaining clearly
what is expected and enabling them to understand what tutors see as important in
their subject, and how they understand learning in it.
500 A. Booth

Structure and Freedom

Whilst students expect more freedom in learning after the strictures of A-level there
is also often considerable fear of the unknown, and demotivation can often result
from what can appear to be the relative lack of direction of university life. An explicit
and progressive structuring of learning and assessment tasks allows students to
explore their subject more freely and practice new skills within a clearly deŽ ned
framework of learning. Similarly, greater independence in learning should not be
confused with greater individualism . Competitive learning is a central feature of
A-level and needs to give way to an appreciation that working with others is an
integral part of self-development, and that exploring experience together is a potent
means of reŽ ning knowledge and learning skills. For, as recent writers have re-
minded us, learning occurs not in a vacuum, but is rather a social process (Marton
et al., 1997; Brockbank & McGill, 1998). The context of learning is therefore
critically important and skills development requires a subject environment in which
skills are properly valued, clearly articulated and embedded into the degree structure
as a whole.

Challenge and Support

If structure is important, so too is support. A relaxed and encouraging atmosphere
can give students the conŽ dence to practice often unfamiliar skills, and to explore
their subject in new ways, as can clear and supportive feedback. An emphasis on
support does not, however, mean abandoning rigour. Rather, intellectual challenge
is expected by students who in general want tutors to have high expectations of
them. Controversial issues are an effective means of helping students to develop a
wide range of skills, intellectual, practical and, indeed, emotional. Such topics
encourage students to consider a topic from diverse perspectives, evaluate evidence
on different sides of an argument and think through why they hold the views that
they do. They also often possess a strong moral element and thus help to connect
students to their own emotional, as well as intellectual responses. Debating such
topics is popular with students, and also allows them to practice some important
communication skills, not least oral presentation, active listening and responding.

Subject and Skills

The failure to balance these important variables is a key problem in teaching skills.
History students, like those in many other non-vocational subjects, arrive at univer-
sity primarily wishing to focus upon their subject and a large part their motivation
is bound up in this. Skills development therefore has to be delivered in ways which
demonstrate the centrality of skills to the subject, and emphasise that scholarship
and skills go together. In this respect, the use of post-modernism has great potential
and could be applied in a wide variety of discipline areas, allowing students to
practice a variety of skills, whilst becoming more sophisticated learners in their
discipline: more critical and re exive in relation both to it, and to their own
 Developing History Students’ Skills 501

experiences and conceptions of learning. It is important, however, that equal weight

is given to intellectual and practical skills in work in class, and that careful and
explicit links are made between the two in order to reinforce the association between
skills and subject scholarship.

Action and Re ection

A problem for Ž rst year students is the passive nature of learning at A-level.
Teaching methods therefore need to emphasise and encourage participation, and
allow students the opportunity to practice their skills as much as possible. Here,
clear ground rules and variety of tasks are important, as is enjoyment. Humour can
be an incomparable aid to interest and motivation, and encourage students to tackle
difŽ cult and challenging issues and tasks. Too much activity, however, can lead to
surface learning. Students need to be encouraged to re ect on their previous
learning experience and on present activities, and providing sufŽ cient time for this
is essential. Facilitating critical re ection can be achieved in many ways, for
example, by learning journals, self-assessment and peer assessment. However, for
new students it is important to acknowledge their lack of experience in such
methods. Experience suggests that in the Ž rst semester at least, peer assessment is
probably best introduced as a formative, rather than summative device, and that a
learning journal might be more likely to gain acceptance once students have become
more comfortable with the notion of active and re ective learning. Just as too much
assessment can lead to passive learning, so too can too many new types of assess-
ment lead to resistance.
Enabling students to become more sophisticated practitioners of their subject
and of skills more generally is a slow, uneven and uncertain process, often frustrat-
ingly long-term in its impact. It is a challenging enterprise, demanding an apprecia-
tion that learning is not concerned merely with the addition to students’ repertoire
of abilities, but also with the removal of the barriers to learning. Such teaching
involves the balancing of a large number of complex variables in the learning
environment, and thus careful planning and systematic re ection on the part of the
teacher. It can, however, help to open up new avenues of self- and subject awareness
to students and the possibility of different modes of understanding and action.
Perceived in this way, teaching skills becomes no mere vehicle for remedial or
market-driven imperatives, but rather the means to a transformative learning Ž rmly
grounded in the substance of the subject.

REFERENCES
ABBOTT, M. (Ed.) (1996) History Skills: a student’s handbook (London, Routledge).
ASSITER, A. (Ed.) (1995) Transferable Skills in Higher Education (London, Kogan Page).
ASSOCIATION OF GRADUATE RECRUITERS (1995) Skills for Graduates in the 21st Century (Cam-
bridge, AGR).
BARKER, A. (1997) University history today, History Today, 47, pp. 58–61.
BARNETT, R. (1994) The Limits of Competence (Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press).
502 A. Booth

BARNETT, R. (1997) Higher Education: a critical business (Buckingham, SRHE/Open University

Press).
BLACK, J. & MACRAILD, D. (1997) Studying History (London, Macmillan).
BLOXHAM, S. (1997) Improving learning skills training: an evaluation, in: G. GIBBS & C. RUST
(Eds), Improving Student Learning through Course Design (Oxford, Centre for Staff and
Learning Development).
BOOTH, A. (1993) Learning history in university: student views on teaching and assessment,
Studies in Higher Education, 18, pp. 227–235.
BOOTH, A. (1997) Listening to students: experiences and expectations in the transition to a history
degree, Studies in Higher Education, 22, pp. 205–220.
BOOTH, A. & HYLAND, P. (2000) Developing the scholarship of history teaching, in: A. BOOTH &
P. HYLAND (Eds) The Practice of University History Teaching (Manchester, Manchester
University Press).
BOUD, D., COHEN, R. & WALKER, D. (Eds) (1993) Using Experience for Learning (Buckingham,
SRHE/Open University Press).
BOUD, D. & MILLER, N. (Eds) (1996) Working with Experience: animating learning (London,
Routledge).
BOUD, D. & WALKER, D. (1993) Barriers to re ection on experience, in: D. BOUD, R. COHEN & D.
WALKER (Eds) Using Experience for Learning (Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press).
BOUD, D., KEOGH, R. & WALKER, D. (Eds) (1987) Re ection: turning experience into learning
(London, Kogan Page).
BRIGGS, A. (1994) Student expectations of higher education: some psychoanalytic aspects of their inner
world experience, paper presented at the Society for Research into Higher Education
Conference, York.
BROCKBANK, S. & MCGILL, I. (1998) Facilitating Re ective Learning in Higher Education (Bucking-
ham, SRHE/Open University Press).
BROWN, S. & KNIGHT, P. (1994) Assessing Learners in Higher Education (London, Kogan Page).
BROWN, G., PENDLEBURY, M. & BULL, J. (1997) Assessing Students in Higher Education (London,
Routledge).
COLE, P. (1993) Transferable skills teaching in the humanities, New Academic, 3, pp. 10–11.
CRUSE, J. (1994) Practising history: a high school teacher’s re ections, Journal of American History,
81, pp. 1064–1074.
DENICOLO, P., ENTWISTLE, N. & HOUNSELL, D. (1992) What is Active Learning (ShefŽ eld,
CVCP/UCOSDA).
EARWAKER, J. (1992) Helping and Supporting Students (Buckingham, Open University Press).
ENTWISTLE, N., THOMPSON , S. & TAIT, H. (1992) Guidelines for Effective Teaching (Edinburgh,
Centre for Research on Teaching and Learning).
EVANS, R. (1997) In Defence of History (London, Granta).
FINES , J. & NICHOL , D. (1994) Doing History 16–19: a case-study in curriculum innovation and
change (London, Historical Association).
FITZGERALD, I. & HODGKINSON, S. (1994) British university history now, History Today, 44, pp.
53–57.
G IBBS, G. (1981) Teaching Students to Learn (Buckingham, Open University Press).
G IBBS, G., RUST, C., JENKINS , A. & JAQUES, D. (1994) Developing Students’ Transferable Skills
(Oxford, Centre for Staff and Learning Development).
G REGORY, M. (1997) Skills versus scholarship, in: A. HEATH, C. ROWLAND & E. CHAMBERS (Eds),
Skills Versus Scholarship in Arts and Humanities Higher Education (Buckingham, Institute of
Educational Technology, Open University).
GUIRDHAM, M. & TYLER, K. (1992) Enterprise Skills for Students (Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann).
HISTORY AT THE UNIVERSITIES DEFENCE GROUP (1997) Submission to the National Committee of
Inquiry into Higher Education (Hull, HUDG).
HISTORY AT THE UNIVERSITIES DEFENCE GROUP (1998) Standards in History (Hull, HUDG).
HISTORY SUBJECT BENCHMARKING G ROUP (2000) Final Statement.
 Developing History Students’ Skills 503

JORDANOVA, L. (2000) History in Practice (London, Arnold).

KALDEWAY, J. & KORTHAVEN, F. (1995) Training in studying in higher education: objectives and
effects, Higher Education, 30, pp. 81–97.
KING, P. & KITCHENER, K. (1994) Developing Re ective Judgement (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-
Bass).
LANG, S. (1990) A Level History: the case for change (London, Historical Association).
MARTIN, E. & RAMSDEN, P. (1987) Learning skills or skill in learning, in: J. RICHARDSON , M.
EYSENCK & D. WARREN-PIPER (Eds) Student Learning: research in education and cognitive
psychology (Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press).
MARTON, F., HOUNSELL, D. & ENTWISTLE, N. (1997) The Experience of Learning (Edinburgh,
Scottish Academic Press).
MEYER, C. & JONES, T. (1993) Promoting Active Learning (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).
NEWTON, D. & NEWTON, P. (1998) Enculturation and understanding: some differences between
sixth formers’ and graduates’ conceptions of understanding in history and science, Teaching
in Higher Education, 3, pp. 339–363.
NORTON, L. & CROWLEY, C. (1995) Can students be helped to learn? an evaluation of an
approaches to learning programme for Ž rst year degree students, Higher Education, 19, pp.
307–328.
PLEUGER, G. (1997) Undergraduate History Study: the guide to success (Bedford, Sempringham).
RAAHEIM, K., WANKOWSKI, J. & RADFORD, J. (1991) Helping Students to Learn (Buckingham, Open
University Press).
RAMSDEN, P. et al. (1987) Learning processes and learning skills, in: M. EYSENCK & D.
WARREN-PIPER (Eds) Student Learning: research in education and cognitive psychology (Buck-
ingham, Open University Press).
SOUTHGATE, B. (1996) History: what and why? (London, Routledge).
SHEPPARD, G. (1993) The sense of preparation: history students and high school/university
articulation, Canadian Social Studies, 27, pp. 107–110.
STEARNS, P. (1993) Meaning over Memory: re-casting the teaching of culture and history (Chapel Hill,
NC, University of North Carolina Press).
WEIL, S. & MCGILL, I. (Eds) (1989) Making Sense of Experiential Learning (Buckingham,
SRHE/Open University Press).
WINSTANLEY , M. (1992) Group work in the humanities: history in the community, a case study,
Studies in Higher Education, 17, pp. 55–65.
ZUBER-SKERITT, O. (1987) The integration of university student learning skills in undergraduate
programmes, Programmed Learning and Technology, 24, pp. 62–69.