Midterm Evaluation Report

The report provides a summary of responses to the midterm course evaluation, arranged by question. There were 30 responses total.

1. What have been the most interesting or compelling Heath Anthology texts that you have read in this class so far? Which were meaningful to you?

The texts by Benjamin Franklin were an overwhelming favorite. Second-rank favorites were Royall Tyler’s ‘The Contrast’ and Olaudah Equiano’s Narrative. Smaller numbers identified Foster’s The Coquette, Hawthorne, and Irving.

Because early American literature is not early American fiction, there was occasional comment along the lines “Fiction is definitely more interesting than political commentary or speeches,” and “I was rather bored with the earlier texts.” Others appreciated taking a longer perspective: “I have found the material we started off with most meaningful because American literature doesn’t start with Hawthorne and that material showed it.”

2. Was Linebaugh & Rediker’s The Many-Headed Hydra useful towards understanding seventeenth and eighteenth-century transatlantic history and in providing discussion concepts? Was this history text reasonably integrated into discussions? Should we focus more on history, more on literature, or is the balance about right?

There was overwhelming support for adopting The Many-Headed Hydra; only three students expressed negative opinions on this question. Comments indicated a significant group wanted more discussion of The Many-Headed Hydra and felt that it needed smoother integration into the course. One comment typified these views: “This text was a fabulous resource…I think it would have been better, though, if you has integrated it more.” Or again in another version, “Integration with the literature was shaky, but I felt the balance of the class should weigh more on the literature side.” Alongside general approval of The Many-Headed Hydra, a sizable group of students particularly liked its paired use with the Heath Anthology – e.g. “I think that The Many-Headed Hydra was a great text to accompany the Heath Anthology.”

Of quantifiable responses, three students believed there should be more focus on history; 13 felt that the history/literature balance was about right; and 10 wanted more emphasis on literature. As one phrased it, “I felt like I should get a history credit for this class as well.” Another student commented “This course definitely feels more like a history course supported by texts – but I like it! History is important to literature.”

A small but significant group commented negatively on the reading load, particularly at the beginning of the class and the quick pace through the first four chapters of The Many-Headed Hydra. One wrote “I had a really hard time with the huge reading assignments at the beginning of class. It was just too much when combined with my other classes.”

Instructor Response: I believe that heavy class support justifies the choice of The Many-Headed Hydra to accompany and historicize the early course readings in Heath. However, the suggestion that smoother integration is needed appears justified in its criticism. The next iteration of this course likely will emphasize the historical appearance and development of selected key concepts to better lace together these two texts. The quick pace of scheduled coverage is one hurdle that this improved integration will have to clear. While course re-design will address that ‘four chapters overnight’ issue, this course has and will continue to require a moderate-to-heavy reading load.

3. Were the timelines useful towards integrating literature and history?

The class strongly endorses timeline handouts: 21 respondents found them useful, and eight did not. Several were very enthusiastic in their comments: “The timeline handouts were a lifesaver and we can keep them for future reference in other classes.” Among those who did not use them, most indicated that they did not due to lack of reading time or one-time use. Several students suggested placing more emphasis on the timelines and integrating them even more into discussion and lecture.

Instructor Response: One major issue towards integrating history and literature is ready reference to appropriate chronologies. This is particularly true in regards transatlantic histories of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, where there is a great amount of little-known social and political history to cover. It’s also a way to lace together The Many-Headed Hydra and the Heath Anthology. So we shall continue developing these chronologies and bringing them into the discussion. For the women’s literature section of the course, for example, there should be a women’s history chronology.

4. Have the online discussion assignments been helpful towards engaging with readings? Do you have any suggestions towards improving the online discussions? (‘Eliminate them’ is not an alternative.)

The responses were overwhelmingly favorable to the online discussion assignments, with only several students dissenting on this point. The comment focused on the organizational modalities of the online discussions. Here are selected comments:

· “Vary dramatic writing assignments with ‘regular’ writing assignments.”

· “More time between posting of question and deadline. Have choices that reflect more than just one piece of literature.”

· “I prefer the online discussions which are more analytical in nature.”

· “I would post them earlier every week…”

· “Although I hated doing them, it really helped me to better understand the reading. But I think it should be more discussion-oriented…”

· “I don’t like always ‘adopting a persona.’ I would rather be myself.”

· “…where we pretend we are an author & strike a position – I like those…”

· “I love them. It is so admirable & how classes should be, that we get to engage in creative assignments that help us grow…and better understand the text!”

Instructor Response: While it has not always been possible so far to post earlier in the week, student comment underlines this as one area where there could be improvement. The one disadvantage here is that the assignments have been designed to generate ideas and discussion to bring into Friday section, so we may not want to move this to the very start of the week. However, this work will be shifted to Tuesday wherever possible. Comment was generally quite favorable to the ‘persona adoption’ type of discussion assignment. We will retain that as a tool, while recognizing that variation in assignment type provides for change of intellectual pace.

5. Do you learn more from the online discussions or from section discussions?

Twenty-three respondents replied that they learned more in section discussions; one replied that he/she learned more from online discussions; and three answered that they either found the discussions ‘different’ or equal in learning value.

Instructor Response: The phrasing of the question invited a direct comparison of learning experience in two different environments. Two students responded with validity that “They both have their advantages” and “They are really two different things. In the Web Board, we respond to the prompts. The discussions have more fluidity in the break-out sections.” As a direct measure of self-assessed learning, however, students vastly preferred in-class discussion. At the same time, as indicated by question 3 responses, students in this course also heavily endorse use of online discussions. This suggests that these two modes of conversation can and should function through complementary usage in hybrid courses.

6. How do you evaluate the quality of your sections discussions? What can the instructors do to improve these?

Of quantifiable responses, 15 students responded positively on the quality of their sections; two responded negatively. The most prevalent comment was that the students themselves were responsible for keeping up with reading and contributing to the quality of section discussion. Several students believed that instructors should ‘lecture’ less and foster more discussion.

· “The section discussions are great and they really explain thoroughly the main points of the works.”

· “More of our input [is needed], more of a ‘discussion’.”

· “It’s hit and miss, depending on if everyone is caught up in their reading.”

· “The quality of section lies in the discussion. The instructors can benefit by allowing one to occur, and not using the time to lecture as on Mondays and Wednesdays…” and “Less lecture, more discussion.”

Instructor Response: The sections appear to be doing well. We will review all responses within the instructors group, with particular attention to how to further foster discussion. We prefer it too when students talk.

7. If you could take this American literature survey course online, would you do so?

Seventeen students responded that they would not take this course in an online version; five answered that they would do so.

· “No! Too much info. I did with 222 and it was very difficult.”

· “Definitely not. I think the texts and assignments are too detailed and sometimes too confusing not to have the option of class clarification.”

· “Yes, to save time.”

· “Yes, if it was the only option I had.”

· “Nope. Never. Nada. No way. Forget it. Not in a million years…”

· “I have taken past literature survey classes online and they were relatively easy, but due to the amount we are expected to read daily, a lack of classroom discussion would make it more difficult.”

· “No way. You have to be there and have people to discuss and really learn literature.”

· “No…it is vital to be able to meet with a professor when needed…”

Instructor Response: This course will be offered online in Fall 2003. It will be an interesting challenge to translate some parts of the current course syllabus into an online environment.