Home

Michelle C. Boomgaard, Muskingum College
Molly Varnadore Campbell, Bay de Noc Community College
Richard N. Engstrom, Georgia State University
Daniel E. Smith, Northwest Missouri State University

Overview
This was the first APSA Teaching and Learning Conference to include a General Education/Core Curriculum track, which had led to some confusion about the purposes of this track. This stimulated a lively discussion about the purposes of "liberal arts" or "core curriculum" generally. From the very first presentations, a theme emerged: the need to structure "general education courses" to emphasize the importance of different viewpoints, as a means to engage students and ultimately empower both students and faculty.

The track emerged with a consensus regarding several ways to improve teaching in the "core curriculum" (with the caveat that many universities no longer have an actual core course distribution requirement, but rather a core "outcomes" requirement). The first was attitudinal: by telling our own students they "need to get this stuff out of the way," we diminish the value of the core in our eyes as well as theirs. Political Science as a discipline is well-suited, in many ways uniquely suited, to foster the “informed, engaged citizenship” and appreciation of diversity that are primary goals of general education. Beyond that, explaining the relevance of the skills of general education - across all disciplines - seems to be important. We must promote the idea that a liberal arts education is a practical education.

The Question of Non-Majors
Participants in the track generally agreed that political science courses offered as part general education teach several key skills, including critical thinking, independence, citizenship, global awareness, and the importance of recognizing and respecting alternate viewpoints. However, questions remain about how to teach these skills without detracting from political science content, and how to communicate the value of these skills. Many commented on the marked divide between political science majors and general education students in classes; the latter often enter classes somewhat cynical and resistant to the idea of engaging in class. Participants also raised the related concern, affecting both majors and non-majors alike, of different venues-- large versus small classes, community versus four-year colleges, homogeneous versus more diverse student populations.

The pervasive lack of substantive background knowledge among non-majors poses a significant challenge to the effective delivery of course content. How can faculty balance the presentation of comprehensive material to engaged, motivated majors while at the same time reach the under-prepared, unmotivated non-majors? It was mentioned that perhaps our political science students deserve to start out their freshman year with majors-only courses or honors sections, rather than having to sit (most likely bored) through courses where the professor must spend tremendous amounts of valuable class time getting general education students "up to speed." The establishment of pre-requisites or specific course sequencing could assist in placing students in courses that will meet their various skill and interest levels.

Many participants disagreed, however, with this idea. There are several potential advantages of having both majors and non-majors together in introductory sections. For example, when our majors demonstrate their enthusiasm and interest in the field, it can spark interest in the subject among their peers. Another great example is that faculty can take advantage of the situation to provide new leadership opportunities for our undergraduates. Political science majors can be identified to lead discussion groups, or facilitate study sessions for non-majors in general education courses. These strategies are particularly noteworthy for improving active learning opportunities (for majors and non-majors alike) in large introductory sections. It is definitely possible, and quite beneficial, to structure large, introductory, general education classes to create active learning environments. By incorporating an organized discussion group element into the class, all students can actively apply the information received in large lecture sessions.

An important general education issue to consider is that many professors whose main area of expertise is either Comparative Politics or International Relations must often teach introductory American Government courses. We determined that bringing a comparative perspective to these courses not only allows them to bring their expertise and enthusiasm into the introductory course, but also achieves the broader institutional and societal goal of internationalizing the curriculum. Providing examples of how other governmental systems work actually enables American college students to better understand, evaluate and critique the American system of government. Political scientists' varied backgrounds in fields such as political theory, public administration, elections, and international relations don't have to be homogenized away in our introductory courses, but can be used to make those courses better.

Somewhat related to this subject, a question was raised about how we can better teach American government to international students. However, the group did not have the opportunity to adequately address this question. Perhaps it could be a topic of future conference sessions.

The Teaching of Theory
A substantive contribution to our group dialogue revolved around the question of teaching theory to undergraduates. We recognized three key points. First, political science professors teaching general education classes have a responsibility to communicate to our students that we have no clear agreement amongst ourselves of any particular theory or perspective.

Second, therefore, many participants found the idea of teaching multiple theoretical frameworks useful. We need to avoid presenting conflicting ideas as dichotomies. Instead, we should always attempt to provide three or more theoretical perspectives as alternatives to promote critical thinking. By offering three perspectives, as opposed to two, students avoid falling into either/or, or good/bad, dichotomies. Alternative theoretical frameworks can also give students a simplified understanding of complex events.

Third, we emphasized the importance of presenting students with concrete applications to illustrate very abstract theories or concepts. Using current newspaper articles, op ed pieces, etc. can easily achieve this objective, as well as motivate students to be more interested in current political issues.

Though some may view the lack of agreement on theory as a drawback to teaching, we find the ability to teach multiple frameworks, rather than a particular set of concepts, to be good news. Rather than seeing our general education classes as responsibilities with limited (albeit vital) goals such as teaching citizenship, respect for democratic institutions, etc., we can view them as opportunities to expose our students to political and theoretical viewpoints that we find interesting. Though teaching the fundamentals of government is part of the goal, exposure to different points of view about politics is, itself, an important learning activity. Teachers will serve students well to select and present the approaches that interest them (be they international points of view, ideological points of view, or even practical applications for political knowledge).

Technology

It is quite clear that process (how we teach) is just as important as content (what we teach). Making active learning a top priority, regardless of class size or course format, is crucial. Using alternative pedagogical tools and providing creative projects and assignments in several different formats can contribute to the success of students with diverse learning styles.

A wide variety of methods exist to engage students of all interest levels in classes: tablet PC technology, survey "clickers," course management software, online course delivery, simulations, and discussions led by faculty or peer leaders. Each has the ability to reach students, including those that might not seem engaged. Our discipline has been slow to embrace (or assess the benefits of) many of these methods; the potential to expand our teaching arsenal is substantial. However, faculty comfort is key to using these strategies effectively. Many faculty need to pursue more training opportunities, as often our students' technological skills are far more advanced than our own.

We should also be careful to not over-generalize and assume that all students automatically view technology in the classroom favorably. Adding substantial technological "bells and whistles" might simply result in "over-teching" of the classroom. Nevertheless, allowing students to express their opinions by instantly viewing an entire class of "clicker" responses, incorporating their questions and comments into presentation materials, or by reading other students’ opinions posted online, appear invaluable to student learning. In fact, in online classes students may learn more by reading the posts of their classmates than from reading the textbook or other information provided by the professor of the course.

A concern was raised that students might not be willing to offer their own opinions if they knew their responses would be immediately presented to the rest of the class. Interestingly enough, however, it appears as if today's students actually respond even more honestly via technology. In addition, there other types of interactive classroom technologies available that allow for "private" student responses, and even provide the professor the ability to give instant "one-on-one" assistance to a student right in the middle of a class. Information on some of these software alternatives is available at http://www.dyknow.com/ .

Assessment
Finally, as more and more colleges and universities tackle departmental assessment, the point of assessment in determining what is effective becomes more relevant. Our group discussed improvement of political science general education through assessment of student learning. It was clear to us that value added assessment is important, even if external accreditation entities or university general education committees may not require it.

A significant concern with assessment is the temptation to trade more complex (perhaps more important) course objectives that are difficult to measure, for more simplistic, easily quantifiable objectives. We must continue to focus on measurement of student understanding of major concepts and frameworks, and the development of critical thinking abilities, rather than rote memorization of forgettable facts. And we must continue to be creative in devising tools and standards for assessment, as demonstrated by one track presentation measuring the benefits of reading-- as opposed to posting-- in online threaded discussions. Faculty also continue to struggle with the tradeoffs in achieving general breadth of knowledge versus imparting substantial depth of specific subject matter.

Many institutions are successfully utilizing standardized tests for measurement of certain general education objectives. Although they do not have a political science-specific test, if you are seeking to assess reading, writing or critical thinking skills ACT's Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) tests are nationally recognized and provide excellent quantitative data on student learning. Further information may be obtained at http://www.act.org/caap/ .

While many faculty dislike or even fear the external assessment activities sometimes demanded of us, a unique point was made that assessment should be viewed as faculty empowerment. Assessment can be a very positive way to actually give us direct control over our classes by generating demonstrative evidence of the impact our classes make on student learning, and quantifying the various tools of student engagement. Assessment can also represent student empowerment, as students begin to recognize and value the development of their own learning.

Overall, the teaching and learning issues surrounding the fundamental role of political science in a general education or "core" curriculum definitely merit further investigation and dialogue.