Devine defends history department reforms

The head of history at the University of Edinburgh has strongly defended reforms of the history degree programme following allegations of poor planning and implementation put to The Journal.

At the beginning of the 2008/09 academic year the history department implemented drastic changes to their undergraduate degrees, replacing the second semester long essay programme with two year-long courses: history in theory, and history in practice – the latter teaching the gathering and compilation of data while the former addresses "core themes and methodologies of historical study."

The new arrangements have been roundly criticised by students and staff, who have questioned the value of the content and the effectiveness of its implementation.

Professor Tom Devine, head of the School of History & Classics, was adamant that the new classes had been received well: “Every course has teething problems. However, I think a survey of a class [history in theory] with a return rate of 70 per cent is more than a valid sample.”

One of the major criticisms centres around a perception that the need to teach general introductory courses in honours years points to deficiencies in the teaching over years one and two. Professor Devine explained the reasons that the classes were not applied in first year: “Theory courses in particular can be intellectually challenging,” he said, adding that the modules were constantly being reviewed and that a review was to take place imminently.

“One of the first things on the agenda will be, 'Is it located in the appropriate space? Should the classes be implemented in third year? Should both be in third year or one be earlier?'”

The results of the survey are overwhelmingly satisfactory with 82 per cent of students "agreeing" with statements on the questionnaire. Many students praised the high standard of the teaching staff and the challenges the course provided.

Some of the suggestions for improvements included: more seminars for each of the pathway choices, students should be allowed to do more pathways and that the course should be offered at pre-honours level.

One lecturer who wished to remain anonymous said that similar classes were suggested for first year students in the past but had been "utterly dismissed": “This time it got accepted, the biggest difference being that it is now in the third year. It means there are now less contact hours and less of a work load for staff.”

Speaking to The Journal, the lecturer voiced concerns about the timing consideration for the history in theory module: “Students are told to choose their pathways early in the course before students have heard the lectures, so students pick the topics they are comfortable with. Lecturers aren't given the opportunity to set out their stall.”

Undergraduate Chris Grainger spoke to The Journal about the two new classes: “I'm a big fan of the history in theory course, it's really good.” The third year student was less impressed with the history in practice classes, saying: “The workshops for history in practice weren't that helpful; we had two separate workshops and we didn't get the opportunity to do anything very interesting.”

According to Prof. Devine, the modules were implemented in a bid to catch up with the competition across the country: “Edinburgh has fallen behind some other major history institutions, in providing training in the methodology of history and historiography. We see our rivals as the best universities, and in those universities these courses have long been there.”

Mr Grainger hinted that friends of his studying history elsewhere do similar classes but that they took the classes earlier in the course: “The theory is good preparation for the dissertation. But I think it's almost babying us to think that it is too challenging for us in the first year. I think it is something we could handle early on.”

Similar reservations were expressed about the conditions of the pathways and the lack of contact hours: “More contact hours starting earlier rather than later, because with the pathways we started them late and we only had two weeks before the course work was due. We had no time to explore the subjects,” said Mr Grainger.

The history lecturer was also sceptical of the award system in place for staff: “We have very little assessment on the number of students we teach or how they benefit from your teaching. But in terms of research and administration, you get credit for that –which is odd.”