If you are not interested in hearing about teaching methods of history, you might not want to read this post. This may be a dry one.
The learning here at Stirling is different than at Western. That may seem painfully obvious, but I am realizing all the little ways I will have to adjust in order to gain all I can.
For instance, the style of teaching and student work is nearly flipped from back home. At Western we are given sources that are great starts for the topics in PDF or link formats in addition to any textbook sources that are required in order to jump start our thinking and focus us into the main themes of the class. These are covered in lectures and help open discussions to a wealth of lenses such as credibility and audience.
This is then typically followed up with assignments that require us to do the ground work of finding sources and analyzing them with the end goal of a rather large paper. This allows us to learn outside of our papers focus as well as give us examples of source types for the subject we are in, along with many other benefits. In this system we get both the collaborative and individual lessons within the given time at almost an even balance. A system I come to thrive in.
So far at Stirling, we are expected to pick any textbook from a rather lengthy list that seems like it will suit us and be enjoyable to read (how you figure that out without reading all of them I do not know), and then select the topic for your papers based of the class guide's listed subjects or reading questions. Then you will know what you must read for your paper and all other readings should be done be done for your Seminars (an entire class one a week dedicated to group discussion), at will. The hope is that you manage to do as many readings as possible but focus on your paper topic the most.
This seems a counter intuitive to me, not because I need sources handed to me, not because I am incapable of managing it entirely on my own, but so that everyone can have a shared experience in the class that is worth participating in. If in such a loose structure half the class doesn't do the readings, it is obvious because there is no basic knowledge discussed within the lecture. You just listen and read and there doesn't seem to be a system of correction until you say something wrong.
The focus at Stirling seems to be being able to do work by yourself from ground zero with very little supplemental group participation. Not that this is bad teaching, because it is a highly necessary skill in History, but where is the collaboration? Is it really only 1 hour a week? (Per class).Is it really only discussion?
In my opinion, History is a collaborative effort that requires others to be able to check your work and gain new insights, and I feel Western's history department does a fantastic job at incorporating that into the class system rather than hoping you have taught yourself well enough to be able to do that later. Personal accountability and self-teaching is still necessary at Western, but there seems to be more of a group learning mentality rather than an individual one.
I know I am a social person, but I also know that without other people participating in history, I would not be a good historian.
So while I learn this new system, I am reminded how amazing the History Division at Western Oregon University is, and how grateful I am to call that program home.
(Feel free to comment your own ideas. I love a discussion.)