Understanding the “New and Deeper Perspective” of a History Course: Digital Word Clouds and Student Self-Reflection 

Can digital tools help students reflect on the knowledge and skills they have learned throughout a history course? This blog post argues “yes” and proceeds to explain how Mentimeter and a double use of its responsive word cloud function can encourage retrospective and reflexive processes among undergraduate history students. 

Maja Hultman

As history teachers in Higher Education, we know that curricular goals seldom are concrete. Our students are not expected to recite facts. Instead, takeaways from university courses in history largely concern cognitive, synthetic and analytical skills in abstract and critical thinking. At the same time, Mills Kelly argued a decade ago that the discipline of history in particular has been slow to innovate new pedagogical methods that respond to the digital reality and capability of our students.[1] Since then, historians have incorporated social media, podcasts, Wikipedia, videos and virtual exhibitions into their teaching, which both hone students’ creativity in approaching complex historical questions and engaging in critical thinking,[2] and teach students to evaluate sources and communicate their findings. [3] Previous blog posts on GWD have highlighted that digital tools create a flat hierarchy in the classroom,[4] prepare students for future employment,[5] and invite students to participate in the writing of history.[6] Kelly even contends that the use of digital tools in teaching history at universities can create abstract processes that reverberate beyond the discipline’s border. If we, as his argument goes “give students enough free rein to take real ownership of their work, we open ourselves (and them) up to the possibility that much more can happen in our courses than the development of the most basic skills of historical analysis”.[7] In light of this, can the digital screen – and its associated creativity and co-constructiveness – assist us in helping students to understand and reflect on their development of skills after the completion of a course? And if so, might it facilitate a larger impact on the lives of students?

Back in 2022, I was keen to join the current trend of incorporating digital media in my teaching of the module “Power and Minorities in the Modern Big City”, taught as part of the larger course ‘HI1210 Intermediate History’ at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. The module served as a thematic preparation for the course’s final assignment, the writing of the students’ first academic essay, and was meant to introduce students to the main tasks of a historian – the analysis of primary sources through the application of various methods. The curriculum stated the following educational goals:

• Show foundational knowledge about historical theories and methods, as well as the scientific development of history as a discipline;
• Identify and discuss essential historical contexts within a defined thematic area;
• Explain central theoretical and methodological terms.

With these, to undergraduates, very abstract goals in mind, the module was designed to introduce modern urban history from the 1800s through the 1960s through themes on class, colonialism, gender, pleasure, control, emotion, morality, religion, and sexuality. In 2022, the course consisted of six, mainly on-site, non-obligatory sessions, consisting of short lectures, pre-prepared student presentations, and in-class group analysis of primary sources. To bridge the thematic module with the subsequent essay writing, I was particularly interested in employing a digital tool that could help my undergraduate students to pinpoint and reflect on their progress in knowledge and skills.

At the same time, I was mindful of Kalani Craig’s call to historians to think about what analytical processes digital tools facilitate for our students.[8] As Craig notes, if the digital tool demands high levels of computer literacy, it can eat up time and energy for both teachers and students, reducing the time spent by students on actually learning critical thinking. Similarly, a self-reflexive assignment needs to be pedagogically curated to lead to deep learning.[9] The process of self-reflection facilitates an important part of a student’s knowledge production, helping them to synthesise new knowledge with prior knowledge and build awareness of cognitive processes.[10] Although pedagogical methods for self-reflection in Higher Education are as innovative as they are diverse – ranging from poetry [11] and virtual hangouts [12] to more traditional assignments [13] – they can fail to generate deeper reflections if students are unsupported by the teacher throughout the process.[14] The tool I needed had to offer little digital labour and high analytical engagement for my students.

With this in mind, I contemplated using quizzes and short tweet-like assignments to help my students reflect on their progress, but both methods required me to explicitly point them towards the acquired knowledge I had planned for them to achieve. I wanted the students themselves to define what they had learned. That is why I chose the digital response platform of Mentimeter, which allows for synchronous and anonymous responses from students via smartphones, tablets and laptops. Its practical threshold is low: it does not demand the installation or learning of new software programs. Instead, students link up via a unique presentation code. This way, students can test their knowledge in a safe and anonymous milieu.[15] Indeed, the use of Mentimeter has been praised for its ability to encourage students’ interaction and active learning,[16] as well as attention and collaborative learning.[17] The word cloud function has been a particular favourite among teachers; posing a statement or question, teachers can ask students to anonymously submit a number of replies. These submissions are immediately processed by the digital platform into a word cloud, increasing the size of words or phrases that are used by more than one student, while simultaneously mixing all answers provided. The word cloud has been used to both kick off discussions in the classroom and provide teacher and students with a quick and processed snapshot of where the class stands collectively. It was this latter function that I figured could be useful to help my students engage with the gap between their prior and newly acquired knowledge.

So, in the spring semester of 2022, I asked the 14 students that attended the module to digitally submit three words or phrases to Mentimeter that, according to them, described the modern big city between 1800 and 1960. They were prompted to do this in the first teaching session and the sixth and final teaching session. This way, Mentimeter was used to create two separate word clouds on the same question, reflecting students’ understanding of modern urban history before and after teaching. The first word cloud created by my students is shown in Figure 1, and it demonstrates their knowledge of modern urban environments before any teaching had taken place. The second word cloud, Figure 2, reflects how the modern city was understood by students afterthe last teaching session. While this pedagogical method can be used to gauge if and how history students understand research interests formulated by their teachers, my hope was that the two word clouds would trigger a retrospective process for my students at the end of the module. While there are other free and online ARS (Automatic Response Systems) that generate word clouds – AhaSlides, Wooclap and Vevox are just some examples – Mentimeter was endorsed by the University of Gothenburg, which allowed me to use my university account to not only create and use a word cloud session multiple times, but also save each session as a PDF to circulate among students. My employer’s endorsement of this specific ARS would also have granted me access to technical aid if needed. Altogether, Mentimeter offered me a supportive environment in which I could spend minimal time on learning the digital tool. Instead, my time was spent on thinking about how I would ask my students to engage with the two word clouds. To help them ponder on and describe what they had learned throughout the module, I created an assignment in which they were asked to engage with the (non-)changes between the word clouds. Their answers, submitted as short and personal texts, reflected not only a broad engagement with abstract, complex notions of the modern metropolis but also some critical synthesis that verged on theoretical implications. A few students even claimed that they now engage with their immediate surroundings in new, immersive and historically critical ways.

Figure 1. Word cloud from first session in the undergraduate history module “Power and Minorities in the Modern Metropolis”. Having been used more than once by the student group, the three bigger words are: “centre”, “dirty”, and “growing”. The other words are: “new transportation modes”, “conflicts of automobility”, “residences or lack of”, “structured”, “class divisions”, “fast growing”, “development”, “mixed or segregated”, “changed appearance”, “conflicts of availability”, “Haussmann”, “in development”, “suburbs”, “quick”, “crowded”, “concentrated”, and “cleaning”.

Figure 2. Word cloud from the final session in the undergraduate history module “Power and Minorities in the Modern Metropolis”. No word was used more than once by the student group, and the cohort of words includes: “automobility”, “limited”, “rich in culture”, “controlling”, “politics”, “multiplicity”, “lived worlds”, “discussable”, “changing”, “dirt”, “contamination”, “expansive”, “polished”, “suburbs”, residence questions”, “structure”, “class divisions”, “divided”, and “old vs new”.

First, most students remarked on a shifted view from the modern city as a physical place to a space of contradictory experiences. Two students noted that the relationship between the physicality of the city and class divisions and segregation was newly acquired information, with a third student realising that the word “centre”, although used twice in the first word cloud, was entirely missing from the second. Others joined in, arguing that their analytical gaze had moved from the centre of the city towards its peripheries. The city was described as a “place for resistance”, with students observing that the “inner city has been prioritised in relation to cleanliness, streetlights, well-being and security”. Another student pinpointed that they had, and still, viewed the city as a place of “possibilities, but the question is: for whom?”. By conceptualising the city as consisting of a centre and a periphery – in terms of both physicality and power – students showed that they now understood the modern big city as much more complex than its iconic topography.

Indeed, more than two thirds of the group noted how the two word clouds demonstrated a knowledge progression that moved from the modern city’s physical aspects to more abstract terms. Knowing before-hand that the modern city experienced vast infrastructural changes from 1800 onwards, students found themselves reflecting on “why” and “how” at the end of the course. As described by two students, they still imagined the city as “dirty” and “crowded”, words that appeared in the first word cloud, but as the second word cloud demonstrates, they had turned their focus to “individuals’ experience of the city and how they act in it”. The shift from thinking of the city in terms of its physical structures to lingering on questions of its inhabitants and how they acted and reacted in the cityscape, was echoed in a variety of ways. Students reflected that the modern city was a space of contrasts, where spatial developments could both increase sanitary conditions and dislocate local populations. Bringing up examples from the six sessions, they mentioned the everyday lives of ethnic minorities, such as Jews, Sami and Romani, and sex workers, and compared them to the romanticised picture of the city that was conceived of and circulated among upper classes. Reflecting on the differences between the two word clouds, students were able to put into words that they now regarded the city as a space of power relations, heterogeneity, and invisible boundaries.

How did students understand this shift in perspective themselves? Some described the changes in the second word cloud as a new “tone”, while one student’s reflection of it as a ‘broader understanding of how the city can be interpreted’ was echoed by several others. Most asserted that while they had gained some new knowledge about minorities, their view of the city had not changed but rather “expanded” into a “new and deeper perspective”. Building upon previous understandings of the city as a site of industrialisation and class divisions, they now saw themselves to have been provided with, in the words of a student, “tools” for answering more abstract questions about human conditions in the modern city. In other words, by engaging with the Mentimeter word clouds, students conceptualised the modern city as much more than a physical locality. Rather, it is the people that “was and is the city”, as one student aptly noted.

In reaching for words to describe changes between the word clouds, one student engaged in theoretical models of modern urban life. They argued that the second word cloud was more “nuanced” and “less united”. Seeing that it included contrasting words, such as “multiplicity” and “divided”, this student challenged well-known models of the modern urban city as a “melting pot” or “crucible”. While the concept, developed by the English Jewish writer Israel Zangwill in 1908, encouraged scholars in the early twentieth century to understand city life as a mixture of various ethnicities, religions and cultures, demanding immigrants to shed their own customs in favour of assimilation, this student offered a new model; the city should be understood to accommodate “the plate model”. According to the student, the modern city did not offer an arena for the amalgamation of cultures but rather facilitated for different groups to live “separated” in the same space. As explained earlier, the course did not focus on theoretical approaches to the city but was built upon individual and group analyses of primary sources. This student’s engagement with theoretical concepts through the ARS tool underlines their capacity of synthesising various primary material and secondary literatures, as well as discussing and creating theoretical models that explain the information. More importantly, the word clouds and the two stages of knowledge they represent were imperative in facilitating this critical analysis.

As a whole, self-reflections brought about by Mentimeter showed that, as a group, my students reflected not only on how their understanding of the city had shifted and expanded into more abstract dimensions, but sometimes also managed to anchor their comparisons of the word clouds in theoretical moorings. Students largely understood their learning process to hold implicit and abstract meanings attached to the modern city. With their knowledge growing beyond the physical and powerful centre of the city to incorporate the everyday lives of ethnic, religious and gendered minorities living in peripheries, the self-reflection proved useful in helping them to define the progression in their own words. In relation to the module’s educational goals cited earlier on, most students were able to “identify and discuss essential historical contexts” and “show foundational knowledge about historical theories and methods”. A few students also managed to “explain central theoretical and methodological terms”. Thus, the word cloud-induced self-reflections should have prepared them for the next module on writing their first academic essay, which demanded a practical application of reflective and synthetic abilities. In conclusion, results from the self-reflexive assignment showed ARS in general and Mentimeter in particular to be an efficient, easy-to-use and engaging digital tool for students to reflect on what they have learned throughout a history course, allowing them to connect prior and new stages of knowledge and understand how this progress come about.

In helping students to reflect on their knowledge progression throughout my undergraduate history module on modern urban history, Mentimeter tested and passed their, in Kelly’s words, “most basic skills of historical analysis”. But something “much more […] happen[ed]”.[18] Two students linked the changes between the two word clouds to their own experience of today’s cities. One of them remarked “the small details” in the city that were explored during the course, such as benches and streetlights, that invited them to imagine secret meetings and stories. Walking through their hometown of Gothenburg, the student was now more observant and noticed, and wondered about, everyday urban structures. Another described themselves encountering the city in new ways: “when I walk through Gothenburg I stop and think about how the city has developed in so many different ways, and how it might change in the future.” These comments are far more than anecdotal details. They not only fizzle with curiosity about all things urban (which, I must admit, is exciting to see as an urban historian and a teacher) but also highlight how these two students employed their knowledge about modern urban history in their very lives. It shows them engaging with the abstract and critical thinking they have learned throughout the module, which in turn anchors them to their own urban milieus and helps them see and explore their surroundings with empathy. We cannot know the longevity of the students’ critical engagement with their cities. But even if lasting for only a short time, the Mentimeter-based self-reflection carries a promise that it might add a “new and deeper perspective” on both the historical time and theme taught in the history classroom and a student’s very life.

[1] T. Mills Kelly, Teaching History in the Digital Age (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013), 18.

[2] Julie Thompson Klein, Interdisciplining Digital Humanities: Boundary Work in an Emerging Field (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2015), 121–24.

[3] Benjamin Fraser & Jolanda-Pieta van Arnhem, “A Collaborative Approach to Urban Cultural Studies and Digital Humanities”, in John W. White & Heather Gilbert (eds.), Laying the Foundation: Digital Humanities in Academic Libraries (West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 2016), 151–78; Meredith J. C. Warren, “Teaching with Technology: Using Digital Humanities to Engage Student Learning”. Teaching Theology and Religion 19/3 (2016): 309–19.

[4] Mills Kelly, “The future of teaching digital public history”, Geschichtswissenschaftsdidaktik (16 May 2024), <https://gwd.hypotheses.org/1384>.

[5] Susanne Korbel, “The future of audio – and history? Über die Vorurteile von Podcasts als Prüfungsleistung in der geschichtswissenschaftliche Lehre”, Geschichtswissenschaftsdidaktik (16 January 2023), <https://gwd.hypotheses.org/826>.

[6] Christian George, Frank Hüther & Natalja Böhm, “@JGU_75: Universitätsgeschichte auf Twitter”, Geschichtswissenschaftsdidaktik (15 November 2022), <https://gwd.hypotheses.org/686>; Dominik Waßenhoven, “Mit Wikipedia lehren: Ein Erfahrungsbericht”, Geschichtswissenschaftsdidaktik (15 July 2022), <https://gwd.hypotheses.org/540>.

[7] Kelly, Teaching History in the Digital Age, 20.

[8] Kalani Craig, “Analog Tools in Digital History Classrooms: An Activity-Theory Case Study of Learning Opportunities in Digital Humanities”, International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2017): 3–9.

[9] Anthony William Bates, Teaching in the Digital Age (Vancouver: Tony Bates Associates, 2019), 370–409.

[10] Magdeleine D. N. Lew & Henk G. Schmidt, “Self-Reflection and Academic Performance: Is There a Relationship?”, Advance in Health Science Education 16 (2011): 539–40.

[11] Rich Furman, Ann Coyne & Nalini Junko Negi, “An International Experience for Social Work Students: Self-Reflection Through Poetry and Journal Writing Exercises”, Journal of Teaching in Social Work 28/1–2 (2008): 83.

[12] Pamela Duke, Suely Grosseman, Dennis H. Novack & Steven Rosenzweig. 2015. “Preserving Third Year Medical Students’ Empathy and Enhancing Self-Reflection Using Small Group ‘Virtual Hangout’ Technology”. Medical Teacher 37/6 (2015): 566–71.

[13] Carrie Hagan, Matthew Callison & Alexandria Fox, “The RECAP and SCAFFOLDS Frameworks: Engaging Students in Self-Reflection and Self-Regulation Within Online Learning”, Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology 9 (2020): 36–63; Brooks C. Holtom & Amy L. Kenworthy-U’Ren, “Electronic Negotiation: A Teaching Tool for Encouraging Student Self-Reflection”, Negotiation Journal 22/3 (2006): 303–24; Bianca Raski, Alexander Eissner, Elisabeth Gummersbach, Stefan Wilm, Linn Hempel, Melina Dederichs & Thomas Rotthoff, “Implementation of Online Peer Feedback for Student Self-Reflection – First Steps on the Development of a Feedback Culture at a Medical Faculty”, GMS Journal for Medical Education 36/4 (2019): 1–12.

[14] Siu Cheung Kong, “Using a Web-Enabled Video System to Support Student-Teachers’ Self-Reflection in Teaching Practice”. Computers and Education 55 (2010): 1772–82.

[15] Katharine Vallely & Poppy Gibson, “Engaging Students on their Devices with Mentimeter”, Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching 11/2 (2018): 144–53.

[16] Samer Skaik & Roksana Jahan Tumpa, “A Case Study of the Practical Implications of Using Interactive Technology in Teaching International Postgraduate Students”, Contemporary Educational Technology 14/1 (2022): 1–17.

[17] J. Ignacio Pichardo, Esteban F. López-Medina, Olga Mancha-Cáceres, Isabel González-Enríquez, Alejandro Hernández-Melián, Maribel Blázquez-Rodríguez, Virginia Jiménez, Marina Logares, David Carabantes-Alarcon, Mónica Ramos-Toro, Esther Isorna, Mónica Cornejo-Valle & Oriol Borrás-Gené, “Students and teachers using Mentimeter: Technological innovation to face the challenges of the covid-19 pandemic and post-pandemic in Higher Education”, Education Sciences 11 (2021): 667.

[18] Kelly, Teaching History in the Digital Age, 20.

---

---