Down with concentrations, up with modules in the history department: starting this spring, the History Department will implement a new curriculum path for majors. Students admitted to the major after Jan. 1, 2013 will structure their studies by choosing two modules from an approved list. Each module must include four courses linked thematically, chronologically, or geographically. The department advises majors currently undergoing the concentrations to maintain the concentration model, though they may switch to the module system with departmental approval.

The reform replaced the concentration model in which majors chose one concentration out of the six offered: Intellectual; Gender and History; Religion and History; European; American; or Worlds, Empires and Encounters.

The new system includes traditional clusters like histories of Europe and North America, but also adds new modules such as Revolution and Social Movements, Environment and Food, The City, and Visual and Material Culture.

A number of major requirements will remain in the new model, including the HIST362: Issues in Contemporary Historiography, a pre-industrial course, three upper-level seminars, and the research project. The sophomore seminar is no longer required but will still be offered.

“The original rigor and strength are still there,” said History Department Chair Ann Wightman.

The change was first initiated in 2009 by faculty under the former Chair of the History Department and current Professor of History William Pinch. The module system was approved by the Educational Policy Committee last fall.

“One key motivation in shifting to the modules was to create a structure that might better embody the variety of approaches, methodologies, and interests of the faculty in the department, and more creatively respond to new fields and changes in the discipline,” Pinch said. “Another and related motive was to allow students to better tailor the major to their multiple intellectual interests.”

Pinch began forming a working group in 2009, consulting with faculty and the History Majors Committee, which is comprised of students. The more formal restructuring process started in 2011-2012.

“Suffice it to say that it couldn’t have happened without lots of supportive colleagues,” Pinch said.

The change grew out of expressed discontent with the previous concentration model from students and faculty.

“History is the worst, poorly constructed major at this school,” history major Kyle Chapman ’13 said of the concentrations system.

Some students in the old system found the concentrations to be intellectually restrictive, confining their studies to one region or theme which often seemed arbitrary.

“As an American history major I was pigeonholed into one country, when the draw for American history for me was the history of revolution and political transformation, not necessarily all aspects of the span of American history,” said History Majors Committee member Shannon Welch ’14.

Other History students felt constrained by course requirements in some concentrations. Some students, such as Justin Metz ’13, who concentrates in European History, also found course approvals for the concentrations to be confusing and bureaucratic, subject to the advisors’ and department’s discretion.

“It’s so frustrating,” Metz said.

Both faculty and majors expressed appreciation for the liberating potential of the module system. Currently there are 29 listed modules which will be reviewed once a year. Wightman explained that students and faculty may propose new modules to be approved by the department.

“This new module system gives so much more responsibility to the students to craft their education,” Welch said. “This is what the new system is about: learning what sparks your interest academically and working with professors who have this similar passion to explore new connections.”

Assistant Professor of History and Letters Javier Castro-Ibaseta observed that students had already been crafting their own informal “modules” by taking courses across disciplines that align with their interests, but not with departmental recognition.

“Now they can do that through the history major,” he noted.

Some members of the Class of 2015 who are now declaring or considering the history major look forward to the new system.

“Originally I wanted to do a University major because I wanted to make my own ‘Hawaiian history’ major,” said Nahulu Nunokawa ’15. “This is a better alternative.”

Still, History Majors Committee member f Han Hsien Liew ’12 remarked that the old concentration model had its advantages.

“The previous structure was strong because there were professors you can identify with and a sequence of courses you can draw on that can give you survey based knowledge for whatever you later decide to concentrate on,” Liew said. “Also it created some solidarity among students in the same concentration.”

During the drafting phase, the department respected the diverse opinions of the faculty. Although some faculty members preferred the concentration system, the change passed with general support.

“There were long discussions about individual requirements, such as the sophomore seminar,” Wightman said.

Students and faculty reserve concerns with the module structure, including potentially losing the basic training and academic consistency previously offered through required courses in some concentrations. The mandatory HIST362 course remains, however, to provide training in historiography for all majors.

Others worry that the new model may pose its own limitations. The number of professors teaching in a given region, time period, or theme, for example, affects the number of courses available to students to fulfill a module.

“I hope it doesn’t get super specialized because there are not too many classes here,” Nunokawa said.

Wightman said that the department and faculty advisors will ensure that majors can fulfill their coursework.

“The faculty carefully considered this point,” she said. “Every module has a number of [history] faculty and you can always draw from other departments.”