“Reflective of my best work”: Promoting inquiry-based learning in a hybrid graduate history course

Introduction

Providing meaningful and authentic opportunities for inquiry-based learning has been an important, if often elusive, goal in higher education. Instructors often struggle to successfully scaffold the process of inquiry for students while allowing them the space to make relevant choices and shape the trajectory of their projects. Creating an authentic project, one with a clearly defined audience and a usable format for distribution outside of the class, can enhance motivation, especially in the humanities. Similarly, learning real-world skills, skills that are useful inside and outside of the classroom, further promotes student engagement. Attention is needed, then, to the process of fostering inquiry and development of practical skills, including how to effectively scaffold this learning for students. Research we have conducted on a graduate course called Teaching Hidden History provides a possible model of effective scaffolding to promote inquiry-based learning and practical skill acquisition through the creation of digital history education modules.

In the above quote, Alexandra, a student in the course, describes how her process of inquiry evolved as she developed her project, an online learning module on the history of Nazi ideology in 1930s Germany. Alexandra and her classmates each conducted their own research to create these modules, locating relevant sources, writing narrative text, preparing visual evidence, and uploading materials to the Teaching Hidden History website. Alexandra, a high school history teacher, designed this module with her students in mind, and she used the module the following year in class. Teaching Hidden History and the subsequent research on the course present a unique opportunity to explore inquiry in the humanities, the process of conducting inquiry, and the scaffolding necessary to support authentic inquiry-based learning in a hybrid graduate course.

One criticism of research on inquiry-based learning has been that it primarily relies on self-reported data (Thomas, 2000). This study is no different. It does, however, rely on multiple forms of data collected both during and after the course. Significantly, 80% of all students who took the course agreed to be interviewed one to two years later. In addition, most of the students in Teaching Hidden History were advanced graduate students or worked in professional settings. Students’ assessments of the skills they learned can therefore be considered more authoritative regarding their real-world relevance. Secondary and postsecondary teachers in the course subsequently used their modules in their classrooms. Public historians drew on their coursework for professional projects, and for those continuing with their graduate work, several incorporated the research and process into their studies. This study can provide a framework to understand how inquiry-based learning can be effectively scaffolded in a manner that allows students the freedom to determine their own paths in creating authentic products and learning real-world skills.

Review of literature

Providing students with authentic learning opportunities has been a recurring theme in the scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education and in the pages of this journal in particular (Hammersley, 2016; Reynaud and Northcote, 2014; Riddell, 2017). Similarly, discussion of how to improve humanities instruction in higher education has increasingly focused on student-centered teaching methods and inquiry-based learning (American Historical Association, 2016; Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2017). According to Healey (2005), inquiry-based learning focuses on direct engagement of students with research and it is specifically driven by a process of inquiry. In addition, inquiry-based learning is student-centered and prompts students to develop their own questions for examination in a self-directed and collaborative way (de Jong, 2006; Dorier and Maass, 2012; National Research Council, 2000; Pedaste et al., 2016). Inquiry-based learning focuses on yielding authentic outcomes in that it poses questions and offers solutions to real-world or “authentic” problems (Thomas, 2000). One of the major benefits of inquiry-based approaches is that students are empowered to construct their own learning which can lead to high levels of student motivation (Bell, 2010; Kuh et al., 2011; Siry, 2013; Wallace et al., 2014). Broadly speaking, the aim of inquiry-based learning is to stimulate students to adopt a critical, inquiring mind, and problem-solving aptitudes through classroom activities that can be applied in real-world settings (Dorier and Maass, 2012).

While considerable enthusiasm exists for the potential of inquiry-based learning, some scholars have called for more scrutiny as to its effectiveness. Kirschner et al. (2006) question student learning gains when engaged in inquiry-based learning and in particular fault inquiry-based learning models that feature minimal guidance for students. Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007), however, have argued that inquiry-based learning can be effective when instructors provide appropriate scaffolding. It seems crucial therefore for scholars of teaching and learning to explore models of inquiry-based learning that provide appropriate guidance and scaffolding while retaining the benefits of intrinsic motivation associated with authentic inquiry-based learning. Teaching Hidden History, a course offered to history and education graduate students, provides one such model. An analysis of data related to the course, that includes students’ reflective blog posts, classroom observations and focus groups, and post-course interviews, indicates that Teaching Hidden History featured a carefully scaffolded inquiry process. Throughout the course, students had to engage in inquiry on multiple levels. In addition to engaging in inquiry to develop their modules, students had to think critically about how to foster an inquiry-based learning experience for their intended audiences. While some final modules were more cohesive than others, the student-directed inquiry culminated in authentic products and motivated students to acquire meaningful knowledge and skills.

Teaching Hidden History

Designed by faculty and staff at the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (Schrum et al., 2015), the Teaching Hidden History graduate course was offered in 2015 and 2016. The course integrated digital history, history education, and best practices in teaching and learning history. Students conducted research using primary and secondary sources and developed digital history modules using a website created for this course in Drupal, an open-source platform.

Teaching Hidden History students created digital history learning modules on a topic of their choosing. In developing their modules, instructors asked students to address two central questions, “How might you use an object or artifact to initiate exploration of a larger historical narrative?” and “What primary sources could you use to reveal the ‘hidden history’ of that object or artifact?” In the course, students engaged in inquiry to identify a suitable main object, develop a larger historical narrative, and select primary sources (text, image, and multimedia) that would help teach this story to their intended audience. The module format drew upon the experiences of the first two authors in creating asynchronous online courses, Virginia Studies and Hidden in Plain Sight, as professional development for K-12 teachers (Schrum et al., 2014). Each module begins with an object or artifact, such as a photograph of a suffragist’s dress or a split rail wooden fence (Figures 1 and 2). The module user, the learner, begins by examining the object or artifact closely and developing a hypothesis about how the object might be connected to a larger historical narrative – what “hidden history,” in other words, the object might reveal. After submitting their hypotheses, users proceed to a resources section where they explore related primary sources, such as photographs, paintings, documents, maps, audio, video, or objects, as well as contextual information, secondary sources, and interviews with scholars. Resources guide users through the historical narrative behind the main object while modeling the ways in which historians use evidence to construct historical arguments. Users are then asked to review their initial hypotheses, explain how their understandings have changed, and outline how they might apply the topics and materials in their own learning situation.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Photo of a suffragette in a white dress featured in an online history course developed by the authors.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Photo of a split-rail fence featured in an online history course developed by the authors.

A blended learning course, Teaching Hidden History, was offered at multiple universities simultaneously through teleconferencing technology. A state-level initiative designed to encourage collaboration among public universities funded the course development. Structured as a hybrid course, students met face-to-face for three weeks. Students then worked asynchronously for three weeks while meeting and collaborating virtually in pairs or small groups and individually with instructors. For the final weeks of the course, students met face-to-face again to present their work and critique classmates’ projects (Schrum et al., 2015; Schrum et al., 2018).

The online modules students created in Teaching Hidden History followed an established format (Schrum et al., 2014). Having created and taught with these modules, the course developers were able to draw on their experience to scaffold the process of module creation for Teaching Hidden History students. Both courses were taught in the summer session with a compressed schedule. During the first class, students brainstormed possible topics for their modules, thinking through the scope of their projects and sources they might use. In the following weeks, the course assignments guided students through an iterative development process, including regular feedback from classmates, partners, and instructors, a recurring practice throughout the course. Students submitted a new module component each week as well as revised drafts of earlier assignments. In the second week, students submitted several primary sources and a list of secondary sources – historical scholarship they identified to help frame the overall narrative. From there, students worked on drafts of the narrative texts for their module with three examples due on the third week of class. Students received feedback from classmates and instructors for each submission, reinforcing the iterative process of research and module creation. By week five, students completed a draft of all 12 sources and accompanying narrative text. From there, students continued to revise their modules, present them in class to colleagues, and make another round of edits before final submission.

Students indicated across multiple sources of data – collected during the course and after completion of the course – that they found this scaffolding helpful. Each assignment and class activity connected to the overall goal of creating a digital learning module shaped by students’ own inquiry and research interests. Steve reported during his interview that the iterative assignments complemented the authentic nature of module creation:

There’s a sense of the class in a way imitating life, in the sense that you start off, there are struggles, you have support to help you, and then you can sort of see the progress as it all comes together. There are bumps in the road even as you advance, but there’s an opportunity to reflect on it, improve on it. And I think even the mindset that the instructors instilled, and that the support from our colleagues in our class in particular instilled, was “Take a risk. This is a process – we hope it is. We hope that it is on that pathway, but certainly at the beginning it could be a mess.” It’s all about the process to get there, and I love that type of aspect of the course.

Martin expressed a similar sentiment during his interview, explaining that each assignment felt connected to the overall goal of creating a quality module: “Weekly reflections, the weekly assignments, helped us start practicing some of the document analysis that we needed to do in our modules… building up of what was expected for the final product helped from a learning aspect.” The scaffolded assignments seem to have reinforced for students the authentic nature of the final project and the value in the cycle of iterative development based on feedback and revision.

Students cited the meaningful feedback from their classmates and instructors as a key factor in facilitating their work in the course. Gwen reflected during her interview on a virtual peer feedback session, “that actually was very instructive for me. And I enjoyed giving feedback and looking at other people’s modules and looking to give feedback on those as well. That was an interactive group learning that I really, really enjoyed doing.” Alexandra expressed similar sentiments during her interview about partnering with her classmate, Steve, “I felt like we sympathized a little bit more on the details because that’s where we both were in our heads.” His detailed feedback complemented the “big picture” feedback she received from instructors. The balance, she noted, “was quite nice.” Feedback from both classmates and instructors supported the scaffolded iteration on which the course was structured.

Students especially valued instructor accessibility and availability to answer questions and provide feedback in a blended learning environment. Paul reflected in his interview that he “had just as much access to a professor, if not more” when compared with a traditional in-person class. He appreciated that in the digital realm, he could ask questions as they came up, noting “you can do it anytime, anywhere, as opposed to traditional office hours.” Instructors were available by email throughout the course and made every effort to respond to questions within 48 hours. Paul further noted that it “was good to know that you had that kind of guidance mentoring you through the process.” After the conclusion of the class, Peter echoed a similar sentiment during a focus group that the course instructors “very much invested time into your module as well. So they know what you’re talking about. They know your angle, they know the sources, they know the narrative.” He continued that the instructors engaged with the students’ goals and objectives in creating modules for specific audiences and use beyond the classroom, saying that they “know what you’re trying to get at which really helped.” Students expressed that having professors available to discuss their modules and provide feedback also reinforced the authentic nature of the course and communicated to students that everyone, instructors and students alike, were working collaboratively to help each student produce their best work.

The scaffolded, iterative framework in 2015 proved to be an important factor in student success. As a result, instructors increased opportunities for feedback on module components when teaching the course again in 2016. They structured more time, both inside and outside of formal class sessions, for students to engage with instructors and classmates to provide and receive feedback. In 2016, students presented their projects to the class in the eighth and ninth weeks of a 10-week course and made final revisions for week 10 based on that feedback. Jeff reflected during an interview, “What I liked about this was that every week you’re working toward the same goal. Every time I sit down to write something I’m … doing a couple of pages a week toward a larger goal.” He referred to the experience as “putting together pieces of a larger puzzle” and appreciated that it “taught me to refine what I was doing over the course of the semester.”

Overview of the study

All 25 students who took the course in 2015 and 2016 agreed to take part in the study. The data under consideration for this study include syllabi, Blackboard course sites, assignments, blog posts, and final projects. We also collected online peer feedback from the 2015 class and online instructor feedback from both the 2015 and 2016 classes. In addition, we conducted focus groups and individual interviews with students. Nine students from 2016 took part in focus group interviews on the last day of class. Ten students from the 2015 class and 10 students from the 2016 class took part in individual follow-up interviews in spring and summer of 2017. All student names used in this article are pseudonyms. Across both years, seven students were female and 18 were male. One student was in a doctoral program in history and one a doctoral program in education while the other 23 were enrolled in master’s programs in history or education. Five were pre-service teachers, six were practicing teachers, and the rest were graduate students in history or education working in a variety of fields, including public history.

Discussion and findings

In creating online modules, students in Teaching Hidden History developed their own research questions, defined an audience, and engaged in self-directed independent research with the freedom to explore topics of their choosing – important motivating factors in inquiry-based learning (Bartscher, 1995). For some students, this meant drawing on research from other courses or projects. Jennifer, for example, had recently completed a master’s thesis on Scottish folklore and national identity. She drew on that experience to develop a module centered around a Scottish tartan. Jennifer reported in her interview that it was “incredibly beneficial” to build on earlier research in creating her module. Another student, Gwen, who was in the first year of a history master’s program, used the opportunity to explore her interest in cultural interactions between American women missionaries in Korea and Korean women in the early 20th century. Gwen remembered in her interview, “So I started there, a very basic understanding of wanting to look into that.” In these cases, students pursued further research questions on topics that were already meaningful for them.

Selecting a topic and developing a research question was more of a challenge for some students, especially if they had no previous work to build on. Mateo reflected in an interview that his, “challenges started about four minutes into the first class. It felt as if everyone else had an idea about what they would do and I was still making sense of what was expected.” He eventually selected a topic on the history of science that he found engaging and satisfying, but continued throughout the course to refine the scope for his module. “I could write a treatise on most topics,” he said, “because I have the tendency to be verbose. The challenge was keeping text short but still expressing all the ideas I wanted to.” Other students experienced similar challenges identifying a topic or narrowing the scope of their module. Alexandra reported in a blog post at the end of the course, “At the beginning of the project I was surprised at how hard it was to really pin down a topic that was neither too broad nor too specific.” During the course, Finn wrote in a blog post that, “At the moment, my biggest worry is about making my topic too broad.” The students who experienced frustration choosing a topic typically had less experience conducting individual research or working with their intended audience. This made it more challenging to adapt to the nature of the project.

Other students chose topics related to their work as classroom teachers or public historians. Edward, a museum curator, created a module about an object in his museum, a toy car based on the Amos ‘n’ Andy radio show. Edward said in his interview, “I remember I had this object in mind, this is one of my favorite objects that I’ve seen at the museum.” He further explained his rationale for selecting the object, “I thought, ‘Oh, this is a great one because it connects to so many other stories.’ And I could have gone a lot of different directions with it.” Another student, Neil, chose to create a module on the Patowmack Canal, a history he was familiar with from his work at Great Falls Park in Virginia. Neil selected the object and topic to help him in his work. He recalled during his interview that he was pleased to start with readily available resources and learn more deeply about a topic in which he was interested.

Still other students embraced the idea of tracing the “hidden history” of objects they had encountered in their daily lives. Jeff explored the boundary stones that marked the original borders of Washington, D.C., markers that today are found around D.C. and northern Virginia. Jeff remarked during his interview, “I thought it was very interesting to have all these historical markers. … almost from the founding of the country, and … in some cases they’re just sitting there.” He shared his memory of taking a photograph for his module of a boundary stone: “I couldn’t even figure out how to get there, because there were no streets that led directly to it.” When he eventually found the stone, it was “literally in somebody’s front yard” and he had “to lean over and take the picture.” For another student, Tom, an intersection of two streets near his home, Sherwood Lane and Witchduck Road, piqued his interest (Figure 3). The street names, it turned out, refer to the 1706 case of Grace Sherwood, the last person convicted of witchcraft in Virginia. Tom reflected, “That was the perfect object to start an inquiry, because it’s right there.” In several post-course interviews, students related at length their interest in their module topics, indicating that allowing students to choose their own topics provided a solid foundation that motivated their research and inquiry processes.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Photo of a street sign featured in a student-created module.

Students retained this motivation and interest as they researched and selected 11 related sources for their modules. “The thing I really enjoyed of this was finding my own sources,” Martin reported during a focus group. Another student, Steve, indicated that guiding his own inquiry provided a sense of pride, “to be able to do that and create that with a lot of ownership was definitely more effective.” Jeff, creator of the boundary stone module, similarly expressed satisfaction during his interview with the process of determining the direction of his project, “To design this whole unit from scratch, using primary sources… And that I did it on my own.” He continued, “I got to say what I wanted to do and then, piece by piece, put it together. It was a lot more original work without reading or reflecting on other people’s work, so it was more satisfying.” Peter expressed a similar sentiment in his final course reflection, comparing Teaching Hidden History to other graduate courses, specifically citing the ability to create his own project, “I thought this was a more enjoyable project … because it provided more freedom.” He appreciated the opportunity to “choose something I was interested in” and “explore something on my own rather than trying to fit it into the narrative of a class.” Post-course interviews with students reveal that the ability to select a topic and engage in self-directed research motivated students and provided the sense of ownership that can come with well-structured inquiry-based learning. They regularly used words such as “enjoyed” and “satisfied.”

Teaching Hidden History further promoted authentic, student-directed research by requiring students to identify intended audiences for their modules and to keep those audiences in mind throughout their work in the course. Most students selected an audience based on their current or intended work environments in history, public history, or education (K-12 and postsecondary). Practicing teachers and pre-service teachers identified their classrooms or future classrooms, including middle school and high school history courses, and mentioned this specifically in class blog posts, focus groups, and follow-up interviews. This included comments such as “that’s the environment I work in” (Paul, Interview) or “it made sense to focus on what I already had at my disposal, which was an IB history classroom” (Alexandra, Interview). Others referenced content and skills standards they currently taught. Martin reflected at the end of the course that he planned to use his module “in my own classes, and feel that it will be a successful lesson.” Gwen, preparing to teach at the postsecondary level, said in an interview, “I don’t think that I created my module so much for the professor who was looking at it …. I always had an undergraduate classroom audience in mind.” This statement supports the effectiveness of cultivating an authentic learning environment. While Gwen succeeded within the structure of the Teaching Hidden History course, her intention to use the module in her own classroom was her primary motivation. Public historians appreciated the opportunity to create modules for their audiences as well and reflected on the ability to “make sure my text stays more catered to a broad audience” (Eleanor, Project Update) and to “approach the project from a museological lens” (Edward, Project Update).

Several students without practical experience outside of a higher education classroom found it more challenging to identify a target audience. When they did, that audience remained imaginary for them, and they were less confident in their decisions about sources, complexity, and argument. Mateo, a career switcher and pre-service teacher, stated in a focus group that he did not “have experience in the classroom, so I don’t have that benefit.” To accommodate, he looked at national subject area standards and asked fellow classmates with classroom experience for advice. Frank chose a high school audience for his module, but reflected in a blog post midway through the course that the content and writing level might be too challenging for the students. Having recently completed an undergraduate degree, he struggled with what he saw as his “undergrad mindset where grades are everything.” He compared this with his understanding of a graduate student mindset that “wants to create something more utilitarian/accessible… something I’m proud of.” While Frank understood the intended outcomes of the class, his recent postsecondary experience as a student still strongly shaped his approach to creating a module designed for the professor – meaning a grade in the class – and not for intended external users.

In contrast, as scaffolded through class assignments and instructor feedback, students who felt successful creating modules for their intended audiences focused on users and the ways in which those learners would navigate and respond to the module. This helped them identify specific strategies and goals for their intended module users. For example, many Teaching Hidden History students talked about the challenges of selecting a diverse yet meaningful set of resources while others referenced the iterative process of writing, revising, and rewriting to present material at an appropriate level. Teaching Hidden History students also reflected, both during the class and after, on the learning goals for their audiences. Lauren aimed to “both teach content and model the research process,” as noted in her final course reflection, while Vince wrote in a blog post that he wanted to “challenge, untangle, and engage undergraduates” with his content on Appalachian history to “broaden perception[s] of historical and cultural memory and landscape.” (Figure 4).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

An 1856 railroad map featured in a student-created module.

During his interview, Tom recalled that he focused on cultivating inquiry, selecting street signs as his central object because “every student lives on a street and knows what street names look like.” He wanted his students to ask “What does it really mean and why have they chosen those names?” In Jeff’s interview, he similarly discussed wanting his module to open students to the history surrounding them in their daily lives, “There’s ways to connect yourself to history just by taking a walk down the street and looking around at the buildings or the markers … there’s a lot of history there. It really has meaning.” The public history students emphasized the challenge of writing exhibit text that must be, as Edward noted in a weekly blog reflection, “as succinct and meaningful as possible … in order to maximize the interpretive communication within a visitor’s attention span.” Brian remembered in an interview how he consciously challenged himself to imagine “how to introduce” the module user “to someone who’s never even heard of [Charlie Chaplin] without making any assumptions.”

Keeping the audience at the forefront throughout the research, writing, and editing process is hard work. Jennifer reflected in her interview that it “was probably the main thing I had to keep reminding myself for the purpose of this project” and that it was “difficult,” yet it was also a key goal she “was looking for in the class.” She wanted to learn to “move from writing academic jargon that only my committee cares about to writing a broader story that more people would find interesting.” Kristin said in her interview that she understood that her module “should actually be something that you can use in your classroom.” While two of the pre-service teachers seemed to struggle with what they saw as the specific needs of future students, imagining an audience for their modules added to the authenticity and real-world applicability of the inquiry process for most of the students. In all cases, it appeared that collaborative discussions about audience within groups with a diverse range of professional and academic experiences benefitted each student.

Despite the hard work and challenging moments, students appreciated the process and scaffolding in the Teaching Hidden History course. Edward reflected that he took away from the class “the idea of thinking about my audience reading this.” Speaking of his current work creating museum exhibits, he said, “I always have people read it and just say, you know, how does this sound? What am I leaving out? What am I assuming? That has definitely been shaped, that perspective, by this class.” Lauren reflected in an interview that the process “felt very authentic,” and that she “appreciated that immensely.” Paul said in an interview two years after completing the course that he learned:

… ways that we can communicate history more than any other class … It encouraged you to reach out and say … How can we enrich this museum? How can we make this classroom a better place? How can we weave interesting stories for different audiences so they can advance and understand different topics and bring them into the dialogue? How can we bring this to them? Above all other classes, that is one thing I really liked and it encouraged you to be an accessible historian.

There is evidence of this, as well, in the lasting skills that students developed during the course. Students mentioned writing for an intended audience repeatedly throughout the collected data sources. This included the process of writing concisely and in clear, accessible language as well as an ongoing focus on the quality and cohesiveness of the end product. Several students noted, as Jennifer did during her interview, that “you can’t just go on and on for 10 pages.” Writing for a digital module and a specific audience requires you to know “what is the point.” While this was a new challenge, she felt that in the end it was “incredibly useful and valuable and something that I try to come back to.”

Students also strengthened their research skills. Lauren stated during her interview, reflecting back on the course, that it “increased my disciplinary abilities as a historian.” Peter, similarly, said in a focus group that he really enjoyed honing his skills, “digging in and really researching these various sources.” He continued, “You have to go through and look at rights and look for permission … reaching out and having a dialogue with other organizations.” Mateo wrote in his final course reflection that “as my research progressed, it became clearer what I was looking for and more importantly, it became easier to find…. sources seemed to corroborate each other which I took as I was asking the proper questions.”

One of the goals of inquiry-based learning is to empower students to be self-directed and motivated and for students to feel a sense of pride in what they create and their role in that process (de Jong, 2006; Dorier and Maass, 2012; National Research Council, 2000; Pedaste et al., 2016). This did not happen automatically in Teaching Hidden History and did not occur to the same degree for all students, but many students mentioned these experiences in their final blog posts, focus group discussions, and individual interviews. Jeff, a high school teacher, said during his interview that he felt he was “creating knowledge in a sense. I felt that I was connecting these things that aren’t often connected as well as they could be.” Jeff concluded, “I feel that this module is reflective of my best work, and that I’m very proud of what came out of it.” Compared to the experience of writing final papers in other classes, he noted that this learning experience “left me with a much more satisfied feeling.” Students demonstrated similar engagement with the modules of their fellow classmates. Edward remembered during his interview that his classmates “were all really excited about everybody else’s projects” and Brian similarly shared during his interview that he “really enjoyed hearing about other people’s projects. And it kind of reignited my love of history.”

Course instructors emphasized an intended audience to encourage students to create something both meaningful and practical. Students during the class and on reflection one to two years later repeatedly articulated a connection between their work and the world outside. During her interview, Lauren remembered thinking in the class, “I can potentially use this! … Once it has that practical dimension, that feels good.” She was eager to use her classmates’ modules as well. Neil similarly commented in his interview, “I enjoyed making something tangible that I can use again.” In follow-up interviews one to two years after completion of the course, students provided examples of how they had used their research and modules in a range of settings. Some continued academic research on their topics for theses and dissertations. Others maintained a focus on using objects as a strategy for teaching and framing their research. Gwen noted that the Teaching Hidden History approach to teaching with objects “absolutely has filtered into my teaching.” Her students get “very involved” while “trying to figure out what did this object have to do with American history.” Martin drew from the larger structure of the course, especially the blended format, in designing subsequent classroom assignments. Public historians shared their modules with colleagues and supervisors, sparking ideas for new exhibits and presentations. Paul visited a historic site examined through one classmate’s module. During his interview, he remembered saying to himself, “let me walk that [trail] because I saw the module and presentation. And I thought, ‘Wow, I never would have had this experience in another history class.’”

Conclusions

A key factor that made Teaching Hidden History an effective example of scaffolding authentic inquiry-based learning appeared to be asking students in the beginning of the course how they might use an object or artifact to initiate exploration of a larger historical narrative and then allowing them the freedom to choose their own topics and develop research questions for a project with a pre-determined framework, in this case an online learning module. This was further structured by asking each student to define their intended audience and to create their module with that group in mind. This provided an important focal point for students and reinforced the notion that they were creating an authentic product and building skills they could apply outside the classroom. While the data we rely on are self-reported, these graduate students were either employed, pre-service or in-service teachers, or engaged in advanced graduate study. Their perspective and reflections, especially those collected one to two years later in interviews, give their own assessment of their learning an added credence. This is especially relevant for their discussion of applying skills they learned to settings outside the course. Further study of inquiry-based learning that includes interviews with students at least six months after the conclusion of a course would seem to be a promising area of future research. A course adapted for undergraduates would also be useful to determine whether students at the associate’s or bachelor’s level are similarly motivated by the process of defining an audience and a topic and creating a digital module.

We are optimistic that a course modeled on Teaching Hidden History would be similarly effective with undergraduates and could be conducted without access to the technology that was used to create this course. In our interviews with course participants, even those who did not have clear opportunities to put the module into practice still expressed that they learned valuable real-world skills from the course. These underlying skills of research, developing digital content, writing for the web, and presenting accessible information for a defined audience are broadly applicable and the ability to engage in self-directed research would be similarly motivating for undergraduate learners. Indeed, such a model could well be used within any number of disciplinary approaches. While Teaching Hidden History involved developing a custom website that students used to create their learning modules, a comparable course might use an existing learning management system available to the instructor’s home institution or a publicly available tool such as Google Classroom. Regardless of the format, the underlying values of student-centered inquiry to create a learning module for a defined audience represent a model with considerable applicability across the humanities in higher education.

Supplemental Material