Peer Evaluations
HIST423: Digital History, 2019
An assessment of this course was carried out after the fact, based on the syllabus, course outline, assignment package, and student assessments. This was a 4 page report, excerpts of which are featured below.
Assessor: Dr. Joseph Zizek, History, University of Auckland
Appropriateness of Academic content
I was very impressed by the structure and approach offered by this course, which I understand was taught for the first time in 2019. It offers a wonderful hands-on experience with digital history that is also brilliantly integrated with the Honours-level research projects they are already conducting for the dissertation. As Assessor, I received the assessment package describing the various projects, which seem well constructed to get students thinking
about many different aspects of digital history. The academic content of the course, judged on the basis of student work, is sophisticated and the procedures by which assessment will be internally evaluated are clearly laid out. The crucial element is that this course is designed as complementary to ongoing research rather than a way of launching an independent stand-alone research project in history. My congratulations to Dr Lenihan for constructing a wonderful offering in Digital History, and I hope it becomes a regular feature at the Hons level.
Appropriateness of Assessment
The assessment structure of this course is both varied and demanding. The number and structure of assignments seems to have been very carefully thought through to ensure cumulative reflection on the various aspects of digital history, source analysis, and visualisation of research. Students had several major forms of assessment due in the course, with seminar presentation and ancillary assignments (weighted 20% of final mark); the digitisation and report (weighted 25%); the major digital output (weighted 50%); and the reflective final report (weighted 5%). Overall, the assessments are structured not only to encourage and impart digital skills but to get students critically to reflect on their strengths and limitations.
Based on the work submitted for assessment, I think the course succeeds wonderfully on all of these elements: the major digital outputs are uniformly impressive ways for students to show their research and reflect upon it. They all reveal students’ creativity and thoughtfulness in the digital presentation of their Hons research, and I was impressed by the quality of the work on display.
Consistency, fairness, reliability of marking
I thought the feedback that was provided on these digital projects was excellent and the marking across projects is consistent and reliable. Dr Lenihan’s comments were invariably constructive. Each student comes away from these comments with a good understanding of why projects were rewarded in particular ways. The grade sheet, fittingly, provides feedback in both graphical chart and textual comment.
An assessment of this course was carried out after the fact, based on the syllabus, course outline, assignment package, and student assessments. This was a 4 page report, excerpts of which are featured below.
Assessor: Dr. Joseph Zizek, History, University of Auckland
Appropriateness of Academic content
I was very impressed by the structure and approach offered by this course, which I understand was taught for the first time in 2019. It offers a wonderful hands-on experience with digital history that is also brilliantly integrated with the Honours-level research projects they are already conducting for the dissertation. As Assessor, I received the assessment package describing the various projects, which seem well constructed to get students thinking
about many different aspects of digital history. The academic content of the course, judged on the basis of student work, is sophisticated and the procedures by which assessment will be internally evaluated are clearly laid out. The crucial element is that this course is designed as complementary to ongoing research rather than a way of launching an independent stand-alone research project in history. My congratulations to Dr Lenihan for constructing a wonderful offering in Digital History, and I hope it becomes a regular feature at the Hons level.
Appropriateness of Assessment
The assessment structure of this course is both varied and demanding. The number and structure of assignments seems to have been very carefully thought through to ensure cumulative reflection on the various aspects of digital history, source analysis, and visualisation of research. Students had several major forms of assessment due in the course, with seminar presentation and ancillary assignments (weighted 20% of final mark); the digitisation and report (weighted 25%); the major digital output (weighted 50%); and the reflective final report (weighted 5%). Overall, the assessments are structured not only to encourage and impart digital skills but to get students critically to reflect on their strengths and limitations.
Based on the work submitted for assessment, I think the course succeeds wonderfully on all of these elements: the major digital outputs are uniformly impressive ways for students to show their research and reflect upon it. They all reveal students’ creativity and thoughtfulness in the digital presentation of their Hons research, and I was impressed by the quality of the work on display.
Consistency, fairness, reliability of marking
I thought the feedback that was provided on these digital projects was excellent and the marking across projects is consistent and reliable. Dr Lenihan’s comments were invariably constructive. Each student comes away from these comments with a good understanding of why projects were rewarded in particular ways. The grade sheet, fittingly, provides feedback in both graphical chart and textual comment.
HIST2000: British Isles 1066-1603, Winter 2012
The first face to face course taught by Teaching Fellows in the History Programme at the University of Guelph during the time I was there were required to be evaluated by two permanent staff members. Below are the two evaluations of HIST2000.
Evaluation by Dr Femi Kolapo, Tuesday 31 January 2012
Strongest parts of today’s class: The lecture links back at a number of points to the previous lecture.
Something you particularly enjoyed/liked about the class: Images of historical monuments, castles and cathedral that are the subjects of the class. The use of a little movie clip directly based on aspects of the topic under discussion and the need for the students to identify points in the movie clip that are erroneous enhances active learning, analyses and absorption of course material
Other comments: The professor’s posture was relaxed, confident and very professional. The delivery was equally methodic and even paced, allowing some students near me to take down the lecture either verbatim or nearly verbatim.
Evaluation by Dr Bill Cormack, Thursday 2 February 2012.
Dr Lenihan delivered this lecture in a clear speaking voice and at a moderate pace which made it easy to follow and to take notes. The lecture was well organized and combined a clear narrative with sophisticated interpretation of important themes in medieval political history. She illustrated her points effectively with some good images and maps projected as power-point slides. I was impressed by her use of the two clicker quizzes, and her leadership of the subsequent discussions, and the students responded positively to these and to the lecture…. Rebecca Lenihan is certainly a competent lecturer and could teach a course again for the Department of History.
The first face to face course taught by Teaching Fellows in the History Programme at the University of Guelph during the time I was there were required to be evaluated by two permanent staff members. Below are the two evaluations of HIST2000.
Evaluation by Dr Femi Kolapo, Tuesday 31 January 2012
Strongest parts of today’s class: The lecture links back at a number of points to the previous lecture.
Something you particularly enjoyed/liked about the class: Images of historical monuments, castles and cathedral that are the subjects of the class. The use of a little movie clip directly based on aspects of the topic under discussion and the need for the students to identify points in the movie clip that are erroneous enhances active learning, analyses and absorption of course material
Other comments: The professor’s posture was relaxed, confident and very professional. The delivery was equally methodic and even paced, allowing some students near me to take down the lecture either verbatim or nearly verbatim.
Evaluation by Dr Bill Cormack, Thursday 2 February 2012.
Dr Lenihan delivered this lecture in a clear speaking voice and at a moderate pace which made it easy to follow and to take notes. The lecture was well organized and combined a clear narrative with sophisticated interpretation of important themes in medieval political history. She illustrated her points effectively with some good images and maps projected as power-point slides. I was impressed by her use of the two clicker quizzes, and her leadership of the subsequent discussions, and the students responded positively to these and to the lecture…. Rebecca Lenihan is certainly a competent lecturer and could teach a course again for the Department of History.