Introduction
If you have ever taught AP History, you are aware that the Long Essay Question is essentially the thing that makes everybody freak out. Students despise writing them, teachers dread grading them, and the entire LEQ format thing has turned into this strange academic beast. At the University of Maryland, they were finding their brightest incoming freshmen were still bombing majorly on historical writing even after nailing AP classes in high school. Rather than simply griping about it like most institutions do, UMD went ahead and solved the issue. Their history professors devised some fairly innovative methods for assisting both high school AP students and college students in mastering this format. They’re also addressing the expanding issue of students utilizing shortcuts like jenni.ai as opposed to learning to actually analyze history themselves.
Main Content
It all began at freshman orientation when a professor found herself hearing the same lament again and again: “I was good at the LEQ format in high school, but in college, essays are completely different.” The issue was not merely that college was more difficult; it was that students were writing in essentially different ways.
AP high school courses must emphasize structure and formula heavily in teaching LEQ format. The students are taught to identify thesis statements, sort evidence into tidy categories, and adhere to strict paragraph formulas. That material gives a firm foundation, but it does not necessarily impart the type of profound historical thought that is expected by college professors.
A History Department professor at UMD spent part of last summer combing through hundreds of AP- and college-level student essays. What he learned was eye-opening; students who performed well on the mechanical elements of LEQ format fall apart when they are asked to generate original arguments or connect evidence in new ways. “They could execute the recipe flawlessly,” the professor said, “but they couldn’t cook without one.”
So, the department created what they call “scaffolded complexity,” basically taking the LEQ format structure students already know and using it as a launching point for more sophisticated thinking. Instead of eliminating the format entirely, they’re building on it. Something they do that’s pretty cool is reverse-engineering real historical arguments. Students are given excerpts from real academic articles and work backward to deconstruct how professional historians make their arguments. This helps them to see that the LEQ format is not some academic exercise arbitrarily foisted upon them; it’s actually how historians think and write professionally, just in a more condensed form.
The department also had to contend with a growing issue: students using AI writing programs like jenni.ai to compose their history essays. Such sites can generate answers that conform to LEQ format conventions very well, but without the more nuanced conception of historical causation and change that the format is designed to test. The professor made this discovery when she noticed a batch of essays that were technically flawless but somehow generic. “The arguments were logical, the evidence was well-organized, but something was off,” she remembered. “When I asked students about their thinking in office hours, they couldn’t really defend their choices or expand upon their evidence.”
Instead of simply prohibiting AI tools altogether, the UMD group chose to turn this challenge into a teaching moment. They have developed assignments that emphasize what jenni.ai and other similar programs don’t do well. One assignment that serves this purpose extremely well is to have students write their first LEQ format answer, and then go research how their subject has been interpreted differently by historians throughout time. This compels them to go beyond merely reciting facts towards viewing history as an ongoing dialogue among scholars who have varying viewpoints.
The department also initiated collaborative workshops in which students go over one another’s LEQ attempts. Several students admitted that these sessions allow them to notice the distinction between formulaic answers and actual historical analysis. They indicated that they became quite good at identifying essays that adhere to the LEQ format.
UMD’s approach has also been assisted much by cooperation with local high schools. Professors at the university visit AP classes on a regular basis to model university expectations. High school teachers, on the other hand, visit university workshops. They do so to acquire a better understanding of how their LEQ format instruction can prepare students for more advanced analysis. Students have also been empowered by this initiative to develop an interest in historical investigation and assessment. Once students realize that learning LEQ format is essentially learning to think like historians, they become more involved in making considerate, evidence-based arguments.
Conclusion
The method UMD has developed in LEQ format teaching shows us that the solution is not always discarding old methods, but trying to discern their true purpose more clearly. By using the format as a basis for sophisticated historical thought instead of an ultimate goal, the History Department was able to bridge the gap between AP prep and college-level analysis. Their reaction to AI writing programs like jenni.ai transformed the potential dilemma into a learning experience, making students see why real intellectual effort is important. As other colleges and universities confront the same issues in preparing students for advanced historical analysis, UMD’s model provides optimism that effective teaching will evolve with the technology without sacrificing fundamental skills. The ultimate test of success will be whether students continue to apply these analytical methods long after they have forgotten LEQ format specific requirements.
