On Thursday, I tried a new teaching technique – well, new to me anyway. One of the perennial problems in teaching seminars is getting everyone to join in. They are often dominated by just a few voices, while others don’t want to speak.

Every week, we set a couple of readings and a source or two relevant to the topic. At Lancaster they were both ued for seminars or workshops; at Hope, the secondary literature is the topic of the seminar and the primary sources are studied in tutorials. The goal, of course, is to have everyone engaged in a nuanced discussion of the points arising from the sources (primary or secondary), responding to one another, rather than it running as twenty questions from me either directed at individuals or asking students to volunteer the answers. But in my experience at Lancaster, Hope, and Edge Hill, that rarely happens.

Over the years, I’ve tried all sorts of techniques. The most effective in convincing students to volunteer answers is to give them the questions in advance (although even that isn’t as effective as you might expect). For me, the problem with this technique is that students treat the exercise as a comprehension test. They read mainly, if not exclusively, for the answers to the questions, as if that is all that matters. Unfortunately, that isn’t how good history works.

What I want is to encourage is independent, creative thought. I want the students to be inspired by the readings to ask their own questions, and to reflect on what they found interesting or surprising, or, indeed, quite the opposite.

So this week, I tried something different in my seminar. The students were given two readings and some pointers to think about in advance of the session, and the first activity was a small group discussion. I divided the class in two and asked each group to discuss the points they had been given in advance and then report back. Next, I laid out 5 sheets of paper with a further question, that hadn’t been given in advance, on each. I numbered the class of by fives, gave them all a marker pen and told them to stand by the sheet with their number on it. They had two minutes to respond to the question in writing and in silence, before moving on to the next. They could answer the question, or reply to other comments, but they had to do it in silence. We got round nearly all the sheets twice, meaning that on the second pass, they really had to be responding to other people’s comments rather than the original question,.

Moreover, at least everyone took part – and that is, unfortunately, a rarity. It’s worth remembering, I think, that just because someone doesn’t feel comfortable speaking it doesn’t mean that they aren’t thinking and learning. The problem is that, if they don’t speak, it is difficult to tell whether they are even listening to what is going on, and impossible on a week by week basis, to guage whether they are understanding what you need them to.

The silent discussion wasn’t all roses, though – it does have its drawbacks. It’s time consuming, even though that in itself is fine – you wouldn’t find me complaining that the students had got so involved in discussion that it took half an hour, but you have to have plenty of time to do a silent discussion well. It would be tricky, though not impossible, I think, to carry out this activity in an hour long session, but I have two, so that is fine. It’s also very difficult for the tutor to correct any misunderstandings or to challenge any superficial answers until the end of the activity. On the flipside, however, the same is true of any group work where students work independently and report back, and maybe the silent discussion has the advantage that when you do have to do this, it’s more anonymous – the student themself will probably know it was them, and maybe a few people around them, but that would be all. Overall, I was very pleased with how well the students seemed to engage with the session, and the level of the responses I got, so it’s certainly something I would try again next year.