Many negative comments have been made about lecturing. One suggests that this methodology “violates the belief that learning results on the part of the students” (Adler, 1984). Another author suggests egotistical reasons for lecturing: “when we professors get into a classroom, we profess” (Balliet, 1970). One widely published writer blames both administrative policies and faculty preference: Lecturing has “continued due to cost-conscious administrators whose major interest is the logistical efficiency of the large lecture…” (Erickson, 1970) and many professors use lectures as a “security blanket without which they would neither feel like teachers nor be recognized by their students” (Erickson, 1970). The traditional lecture has faced stiff competition from other teaching methods: coaching, Socratic questioning, simulations, collaborative education contracts, role playing, self-instruction, the case method, and personalized systems of instruction.Despite the challenges of innovative teaching methods, lecturing persists. Wagner Thielens (1987) in a random study of half of American universities found that 81 percent of social scientists lectured. This confirms an earlier study which found that “the dominant mode of instruction remains the lecture…” (Eble, 1972). Thus, lecturing persists because of the power of tradition, the structure of the classroom, the textbooks, and the subject/discipline orientation of higher education.The truth of the matter is that lecturing, when done well, is effective, for “a skillful lecturer can gain as favorable a response as a seminar leader” (Eble, 1972). Lecturing is an efficient method of imparting information, analysis, and explanation of complex questions and concepts, and thus is an effective medium for introductory classes. Further, good lectures can update texts, synthesize tomes, provide structure, and pique students' interests.

I have developed and used the role playing simulation described here in discussion sections of a first-year course entitled “Introduction to the Study of Policy Problems.” The purpose of the game is to materialize concepts presented in a lecture entitled “Revitalizing Urban America: Values and Urban Policy,” which has been an organizing focus for the course. It introduces four views of the functions cities perform for those who live and work in or near them. These views include seeing the city as an engine of economic growth, a provider of services to residents, a locale for social communities, and a forum for democracy.Before playing the game, students learn about the history of American urban development, current economic and fiscal problems in cities, and options for economic development and residential revitalization that have been suggested to make the transition from an industrial to a service-based economy. (A list of readings from the course syllabus follows.) The values to be represented by each group in the game are described as the goals of residents of a metropolitan area as well as their perceptions of themselves and their surroundings.Students are put into four groups, each representing a distinct functional interest, or “vision” of the city. The groups represent the values identified in the lecture as answers to the question “What are cities for?” They include a “pro-growth coalition,” a “service bureaucracy,” a “social communities” and a “political officials” group.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Many political scientists find that they have difficulty generating enthusiasm (from both themselves and their students) when they teach the introductory course in American politics. The material can be very dry and basic, students are often required to take the course, and many believe they know the material from high school civics classes. In short, motivation can be a major problem, and the instructor must find a way to get students involved with the course. This is especially important, because this course often serves as the gateway to other offerings in American politics. If students are not excited about the Intro class, they may not go any farther in political science.I believe the key to motivation in this class lies in getting students to actually participate in the interest group process. This allows them to test the theoretical constructs presented in the course in the laboratory of real world politics. Therefore, I have designed an introductory course in American politics that is centered around a small group project that requires students to try to get a government (local, state, or national) to do something substantial that the group proposes.In many respects, my course is a fairly traditional introduction to American politics. We cover the Constitution, federalism, interest groups, civil rights, elections, theories of power,and the institutions. The reading is reduced a bit to allow time for students to work on the projects. After describing the project, I will explain how it fits into the framework of the course.

In writing of the seven deadly sins of college teaching, Eble (1983:3) observed that “Arrogance, Dullness, Rigidity, Insensitivity, Vanity, Self-Indulgence, and Hypocrisy” are sins as deadly to students' chances of learning “as the traditional deadly sins were to chances of salvation.” Focusing on “dullness,” Eble comments that though it is a seemingly benign sin, it competes for the “highest (or lowest) place.”With this in mind, and on the assumption that instructors are the dominant influence in the classroom, the major focus for many researchers has been the analysis of teacher behavior. From their studies five characteristics of effective college teachers have been identified: scholarship (Mayhew, 1980); interest in subject (Beatty and Behnke, 1980); enthusiasm in presentation (Barr, 1981); keen wit (Bryant, et al., 1980); and the ability to dramatize a subject (Norton and Nussbaum, 1980). Consequently, the communication style of instructors has emerged as a prevailing factor in the teaching-learning process and has served as the basis of a growing body of research.In the usual college classroom environment, communication is the central element in teaching. Norton's studies (1983) offered evidence showing perceived teacher effectiveness to be related to a teacher's perceived communication style, while Scott and Nussbaum (1981) found students' perceptions of teachers' communication styles to be associated significantly with student achievement. In the last instance, the findings showed that an instructor's perceived adeptness in communication was highly related to a student's evaluation of the overall performance of that instructor in the classroom.

The study of the American Congress raises compelling issues for both teachers and students in the examination of three interrelated arenas of analysis: Congressional members, Congress as an institution, and the role of Congress in the American political system. Underlying my approach to teaching Congress is a strong emphasis on discussing the role Congress should play in our Madisonian policy process as well as the role of elected representatives in a representative democracy. In many ways, then, a course on Congress or Legislative Politics and Policy making allows the instructor and students to examine the broader operation of the American political system by looking over the shoulders of congressional members as well as Congress as an institution. In doing so, broad structural questions might be addressed: To what extent is a Madisonian framework of government relevant for confronting and solving the policy problems that we currently face and will likely face in the future? What role can (and should) Congress play in addressing issues, such as the deficit, energy and environmental problems, homelessness, education, and covert foreign policy operations? In confronting these questions, I have found that students seek the opportunity to place Congress in an historical context. In doing so, I ask students to examine the three times in this century when Congress has responded to sweeping presidential domestic policy initiatives, including FDR's New Deal (1933-1936), Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs (1965-1966), and Ronald Reagan's first-term budget and tax cut initiatives (1981).

Computers inspire mixed emotions among political scientists. Love, hate, fascination, ennui, and frustration sometimes occur during the course of a single computer work session. Individuals come to terms with the beast in varying ways; obviously personal work style and level of computer dependency are each scholar's own business. However, expanded use of information technology in the disciplinary curriculum is a common concern deserving discussion. Like earlier debates between behavioralists and traditionalists, the current discussion raises questions about the discipline's central purpose. This essay reviews proposals to “computerize” political science curricula in light of contemporary theories about information and managerial work.Historically, political scientists' computer involvement has been limited, but it is now intensifying in response to educational, technological, and environmental influences. Political scientists have used computers as teaching tools since at least the early 1970s, when the APSA “SETUPs” began appearing, but as novelty items, diversions reflecting the devotion of idiosyncratic individuals. This publication has disseminated many such “experiments,” as have Social Science Computer Review and the National Collegiate Software Clearinghouse. Even as desktop machines began proliferating in the early 1980s, their use in the classroom was considered to be optional, something peripheral to the discipline which one could attempt if one had the inclination.This laissez-faire ambience may be ending in the face of societal transformations. In the classroom political scientists foster intellectual skills broadly useful to former students. A student may be an activist or an avid pre-lawyer, but his or her future professional development will be built on analytical, and communications skills honed in political science courses. This linkage between political science classrooms and the professional world could weaken if we do not adopt to societal change.

Are these good or bad times for liberalism? On the domestic front, after eight years of the Reagan administration and a presidential campaign in which liberalism became “the L-word,” they seem to be bad times indeed. The same can be said of Margaret Thatcher's Britain. But elsewhere, especially in the Communist world, events and regimes seem to be moving in a liberal direction. China after Tiananmen Square presents a notable exception, of course, but the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are generally moving towards market economies and a greater concern for individual rights and liberties—two of the hallmarks of liberal societies.Hence the question: Are these good or bad times for liberalism? To answer, we shall need a broader perspective than a survey of contemporary developments can provide. We shall need to look back, that is, to see what liberalism was in order to understand what it has become. Only then can we assess its current condition and prospects—and appreciate how politics in the United States is largely an intramural debate between different wings of liberalism.Liberalism did not begin as a self-conscious social and political movement. This is evident in the fact that “liberal” did not enter the vocabulary of politics until the early 1800s, at least a century after what we now call liberalism became an important force in political thought and action.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

During the 1987 Iran/Contra hearings, Senator George J. Mitchell of Maine spoke eloquently about the importance of the rule of law in a culturally pluralistic nation like the United States:Most nations derive from a single tribe or a single race. They practice a single religion. Common racial, ethnic, and religious heritages are the glue of nationhood for many.The United States is different. We have all races, all religions, a limited common heritage. The glue of nationhood for us is the American ideal of individual liberty and equal justice.The rule of law is critical in our society. The law is the great equalizer, because everybody in America is equal before the law.The students we teach live in what is certainly one of the most culturally pluralistic cities, and nations, in the world. They are increasingly part of a society in which this pluralism affects them either as members of cultural minorities, or as members of the so-called dominant culture who interact with many different cultural groups. As a cultural anthropologist and a political scientist teaching in a college with a focus on law and justice, we felt it important to bring to our students a deeper understanding of the possibilities and problems of cultural pluralism in a democratic, constitutional society. While Senator Mitchell's words surely express a fundamental ideal in American society, how closely these words express the reality experienced in American society is a question that had long interested us.