On Making Teaching "U"

On Making Teaching "U"Author(s): Gerald BenjaminSource: PS, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Winter, 1971), pp. 41-47Published by: American Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/418574 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 04:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toPS.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.163 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:36:30 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/418574?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Teaching Notes On Making Teaching "U"

Ten years ago, in a tongue-in cheek article that appeared in the back pages of the Western Political Quarterly, Professor Arnold

Rogow applied two categories developed by the British philologist Alan Ross to the political science profession.' "U and non-U distinctions," wrote Rogow quoting Ross, "may be used in a variety of language areas to designate usages which are 'correct, proper, legitimate, appropriate' from usages which are 'incorrect, not proper, not

legitimate.' "2 "Moreover", Rogow went on, "U and non-U distinctions may be applied to individuals, institutions, publications, and orientations. Indeed, . .. political scientists can establish their status in the profession by locating themselves with reference to a variety of U and non-U designations."3

It is hardly astonishing that, in the analysis of these designations that followed, Rogow found "research to be "U" and "teaching" to be "non-U".

Research is U, and designations which include the word research are U, such as research grant, research professor, research assistant, etc. Teaching and teaching assistant are non-U.4

The objective of this short paper is to determine whether, in the 10 years since

Rogow wrote, the relative "U-ness" of teaching within the profession has increased, and to explore briefly what more can be done during the next decade to make teaching "U".

A Perennial Problem Defies Solution A historical perspective reveals that almost since the establishment of political science as a self-conscious academic discipline in the United States there has been a recurring

1 Rogow, Arnold. "A Short Note on U and Non-U in Political Science," Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 13, p. 1064.

2 Ross used the letter "U" simply because it was the initial one in the word upperclass. 3 op. cit., p. 1065. 4 Ibid.

Gerald Benjamin

State University of New York at New Paltz*

unease about the "non-U-ness" of what most members of the profession do for a living. Though political scientists have over- whelmingly been teachers, when they have paused for self analysis they have repeatedly become aware that they did little to prepare their graduate students for future teaching roles. Witness the following:

1916 APSA Committee on Instruction. The Teaching of Government, p. 197. "Suggestions for the Improvement of Instruction 8. That better provision be made for the

training of teachers in this subject."

1930 APSA Committee on Policy, Report of the Committee (APSR Vol. 24), pp. 182-3. "In the case of persons going into the teaching of political science the question frequently arises whether some training in pedegogy should not be required .... This oft repeated question may lead us to consider whether the departments in which graduate courses in political science are taught might not introduce their own courses in the teaching of the subject .... There is the further question of teaching experience.... The problem of how best to get our first teaching experience has not been settled in any uniform way."

1951 APSA Committee for the Advancement of Teaching, Goals for Political Science, pp. xxi-xxii. "Most PhD's go into teaching. The

graduate schools are deficient in the attention they give to preparation for

teaching . . .The profession should work toward the development of students who will become both good scholars and good teachers. [The committee] . . . favors setting up norms

whereby the total effectiveness of

* On leave for military service with the USAMEDD Historical Unit, Walter Reed Army Medical Center. For their research and editorial aid in preparing this paper I would like to thank Mrs. Helise Benjamin and Mr. Ernest Elliott.

41




teachers may be judged. It also recommends that the Association annually award prizes for good teaching . . ."

1965 Robert Connery (ed.). Teaching Political Science. p. vi. "In the past, political scientists have been principally concerned with the research aspects of the discipline. Now more attention should be given to their role in the college community as college teachers."

Yet despite these self criticisms, members of the discipline writing in the 1960's were no more prone to show a concern about teaching than were their predecessors. A survey of five major political science journals for the nine years from 1960 to 1968 (Table 1) reveals that in no single year was more than one article on teaching published, and that in four of the nine years none were published. Furthermore, in only one of these nine years was a relatively major effort made at the annual meeting of the APSA to deal with the problems of teaching political science.

More recently, some change has been noticeable. During 1969-70 the newsletter of the association, PS, has established itself as something of a forum for the discussion

of problems and techniques in teaching political science; more articles (eight) on teaching have been published in its pages in the last 18 months than were published in nine years in the five journals reviewed for this study. At the annual meetings as well a trend is discernable. Due in part to the efforts of the Caucus for a New Political Science three panels on teaching were included in 1969. For 1970 the program in this area was significantly augmented, with eight panels planned. Yet, these are only indicators of an

awakening interest. In the universities, preparation for teaching political science remains deficient.

Teaching Incipient Political Scientists About Teaching Currently, most political science departments state as one of the objectives of their graduate programs the preparation of professional political scientists for teaching and research. In fact, about two-thirds of the new Ph.D's in the field each year have an educational institution as their first employer.5 Despite these realities, however, of the 73 institutions listed in the American Council on Education Guide to Graduate Study as offering the doctorate in political science or government

5 Anon., "Profile of PhD. Recipients in Political Science, 1968," PS, Vol. 2, p. 659.

Table 1 Journal Articles on Teaching, 1960-1968

Year

1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Total

APSR

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

O

O

J. of Pol. PSQ WPQ Annals

0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

2

Annual Meeting*

1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0

6

*Panels jointly sponsored by the National Council for Social Studies are excluded. They were concerned with secondary school teaching and teacher training.

42 PS Winter 1971

1 1 1 1



for which catalog data were available for this study, only six (08%) offered course work in teaching politics.6

This course work varied in rigor from university to university. At one institution it was viewed simply as a necessary preparation for potential junior college teachers, but was not required of doctoral candidates. At most of the six, however, the course consisted of a non-credit or pass-fail seminar required of graduate students who planned to become college teachers. The course descriptions speak for themselves:

American University Colloquium on the Teaching of Politics and Government. A very informal association of groups of faculty members and of those students who intend upon college teaching as a career, to convey perspectives and experiences and to guide the participating students in systematic preparation.

University of California at Berkeley Professional Preparation for Teaching Assistants Special study under the direction of a staff member, with emphasis on the teaching of undergraduate courses in political science. Must be taken on a pass/not pass basis.

Kent State College Teaching in Political Science Staff training and experience in college teaching; colloquia on the professional ethics and responsibilities of political scientists.

State University of New York at Albany Practicum Teaching Seminar A seminar designed to acquaint MA and

6 Research was limited to catalogs available at the University of Maryland (College Park) graduate catalog collection. Most were 1969-70 or 1970-71 editions. Fourteen schools were excluded for lack of data. They were: The University of California at Davis, Irvine, Santa Barbara, and San Diego, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Pennsylvania State University, Fordham University, University of Georgia, University of Hawaii, State University of New York at Buffalo, Northern Illinois University, University of Massachusetts, and the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Quick, A. (ed.). A Guide to Graduate Education, Washington: American Council on Education, 1969.

PhD candidates with current techniques employed in teaching political science at the college level.

The emphasis of these descriptions gains added impact when it is contrasted with that of more traditional graduate student teaching programs of political science departments. At Cornell University, for example:

All PhD candidates are required to serve as teaching assistants for one year. Normally, this will be in their second year, although in special circumstances, it may be in their third year of graduate study. Students entering the program with a Master's degree ordinarily would be expected to serve as teaching assistants during their first year of graduate work in the department. Normally, financial support will be available to candidates with Master's degrees for only three years, including the year in which they serve as teaching assistants.7

The Preliminary Report of the Committee for an Exploratory Study of Graduate Education in Political Science notes that 25 percent of the 61 departments they surveyed required teaching as a part of the degree program, but that few of these departments offered the graduate student a meaningful opportunity to come to grips intellectually with the problems of teaching undergraduates.8 The graduate student, "used" to "cover a section" of a large lecture course once or twice a week, has little to say about course requirements, course content, or teaching techniques. Pressed for time in his own doctoral work and acting in an environment in which teaching is not stressed, it is not surprising that the young graduate instructor often takes his responsibilities to his undergraduates lightly. With its emphasis on teaching as a means of keeping the wolf from the door, the traditional program, rather than developing a positive orientation toward teaching, tends to foster and perpetuate indifference as a hallmark of the profession.

7 Cornell University, Graduate Catalog, 1969, p. 124.

8 The Committee, "Obstacles to Graduate Education in Political Science," PS, Vol. II, p. 631.

43




Table 2 A comparison of "Research" and "Teaching" degree requirements in political science graduate programs

Language Methodology Teaching

Course required 23 (100%) 10 (44%) 2 (9%) Course offered N/A 17 (74%) 2 (9%)

Other data further reinforce our awareness of this indifference. Rogow's 1960 hypothesis that research was "U" and teaching "non-U" is well supported by a comparison (Table 2) of the relative emphasis on teaching and research in the degree requirements of 23 political science departments selected at random from the American Council on Education Guide. All 23 required Ph.D. candidates to be proficient in at least one language (a traditional research skill) and possibly two, though another research skill (e.g. statistics, computer programming) often could be substituted for the second language. More than two-fifths of the institutions reviewed required a course in methodology, and almost three-quarters offered such a course. In contrast, only two schools required a course in teaching political science. This imbalance in the training of young political scientists has not gone unnoticed and is most obvious to the students themselves. Data gathered by the Committee for the Exploratory Study of Graduate Education in Political Science reveal that the low quality of preparation for teaching careers is the single most important focus of professional dissatisfaction for political science graduate students.9 In fact, when the extreme ends of both are masked out, the graph of "satisfaction-dissatisfaction" with training in teaching is almost the mirror image of the one of training in research skills (Chart 1). Apparently, upon emerging from graduate school, young political scientists feel more confident about their ability to prepare a paper for a professional conference than about their ability to face a class of undergraduates.

Why and Whereto Perhaps the most widely accepted explanation for the continued failure of political science departments to train graduate students in teaching centers on the nature of the reward structure in the profession and in the academic world at large, and is succinctly summarized by Somit and Tanenhaus in their book, Amercian Political Science-Profile of a Discipline. 0

Noting that political scientists, when surveyed, ranked "teaching ability" last under "attributes contributing to career success", the authors remark:

Knowledge of the low return from good teaching is passed from one academic gen- eration to another more by example than by precept. An astute student, observing the manner in which his professors divide their energies between teaching and research and their efforts to reduce the former in order to devote additional time to the later, quickly senses the relative value of the two in fur- thering his carrer. For this reason, the current complaint that our graduates are ill equipped to serve as teachers misreads the situation. The problem is not the deficiency of their preparation, but the working of a system which provides minimal rewards for instruc- tional excellence and devotion.

Though popular, this explanation is a bit over- simple. The "system" is not entirely at fault, for the professors, in conforming to its norms and in thus "teaching" their students to do likewise are, in effect, sustaining and per-

10 New York: Atherton, 1964. 11 Ibid., pp. 80-81. 9 Ibid., pp. 631-632.

44 PS Winter 1971



Chart 1 Comparison of Curves of Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction, Training in Teaching and Research, Graduate Students in Political Science

Teaching-Q1 Research-Q2

30'

20'

10'

5%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q1-The overall training you have received in teaching skills Q2-The overall training you have received in research skills (1 =Very Satisfied, 2 Satisfied, 3 =Slightly Satisfied, 4= Neutral, 5=-Slightly Dissatisfied, 6= Dissatisfied, 7=Very Dissatisfied. No Response and Not Applicable responses are not shown.) Source: "Preliminary Report of the Committee for an Exploratory Study of Graduate Education in Political Science: Obstacles to Graduate Education in Political Science." PS, Vol. II, No. 4, p. 640.

petuating it. And furthermore, the Somit and Tanenhaus analysis, though clearly 'telling it like it is', fails to deal with why it is like it is. A tentative answer to this question of "why?" however, has been offered in several other

places in the literature, limited as it is, on

teaching political science.'2

Simply stated, this thesis has it that teaching is slighted in the preparation of political scientists because it is negligible in their evaluation, and that this is true because no visible, quantifiable standard of "good teaching" has been developed within the profession. The output of "scholarship" is measurable and quantifiable. It can be seen and tabulated in numbers of books and articles published, papers delivered, and invitations to speak at remote campuses. Service to the

12 See, for example, Austin Ranney, "Political Science: The State of the Profession," Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 80, p. 276, and Leonard J. Fein, "Teaching Political Science," PS, Vol. 2, p. 303.

college or university is likewise visible and quantifiable (i.e., number of committees served on, reports written, etc.). Both of these provide easy and visible measures for department heads and college deans, and they are differential measures. Some faculty members publish more than others, some serve on more committees than others; they can be ranked easily with respect to these criteria.

Teaching, on the contrary, is the invisible daily enterprise of the university, and its results do not provide a similar simple way to rank faculty members. It is invisible because, traditionally, what goes on in the classroom is the professor's business; his colleagues enter only when invited. It has not been quantifiable in its results because it has not occurred to us to try to measure a teacher's success by his output; that is, by his effect on his students and by their evaluation of him. Lack- ing these two qualities, "teaching ability" has not been used as a basic criterion on which political scientists (read "teachers of politics")

45




have been judged. And without such a criterion at hand, members of the profession could easily ignore the problem of learning and transmitting teaching skills. It simply was not necessary.

What, then, is to be done? Some steps have already been taken. The publication of "Teaching Notes" in PS lends some legiti- macy to writing about teaching techniques and about the problems encountered in teaching political science to undergraduates, as do the panels on teaching at the annual meetings. Through publication and the de- livery of papers, the traditional vehicles for recognition can be harnessed for use to renew and reinforce the concern for good teaching within the profession.

But more is needed. Standard methods must be established to make teaching a visible and measurable enterprise at the college and departmental level. Certainly, faculty can cooperate with students in developing and validating a series of scales that can be used by students to evaluate teaching in political science courses. Perhaps the association should support the research for, and development of, such a scale and promote its widespread use. The results from it could then join journal article reprints in each professor's "tenure and promotion file" and could be used on personal vita sheets. Perhaps, too, standard measures can be developed to test students both when they enter a course and when they leave it on such parameters as "level of information about politics" or "ability to think critically about politics". All demonstrated changes, of course, would not be due to the level of teaching in undergraduate political science courses, but extraordinary teachers could be identified by a high level of "success" with heterogeneous student populations. The objective is not to provide an alternative way to evaluate the teaching political scientist, but to add measures of teaching ability to those already used.

Perhaps-yes, perhaps-the old tabu against one professor's entering another's class uninvited should be rethought. Perhaps a

system of teaching consultants or visitors, again under the auspices of the APSA, should be established, visitors who might be brought in on a fee basis to judge, on established and publicized standards, the teaching ability of members of a particular department. Or perhaps a system of mutual exchange visits to one another's classes by professors of the same rank should be set up within political science departments, and regular intra- departmental evaluative systems established. Professional criticism is expected when one publishes; why not when one teaches?l3

These changes, or others like them, should seriously be considered, for they would alter the profession's reward structure, and this is one key to "making teaching U". But such widespread changes should not be made without basic alterations in the requirements and expectations of graduate departments of political science, for as Leonard Fein has noted:

So long as graduate students are nowhere provided with instruction in the process of teaching itself, they will continue to believe (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) that teaching cannot be taught.14

Learning about teaching, and about learning, must become well established in major political science departments if the preparation of young political scientists for teaching is to improve. The appearance of new courses, such as the ones described above, within some departments is therefore encour- aging, for through such efforts it can be demonstrated to the profession that concern for teaching methods and problems is not an exercise in the study of "form without content", but rather may be a way of anticipating and confronting the ethical and professional questions that arise in the early stages of a political science teaching career.

13 It has been evident to me that most of my colleagues prepare much more assiduously for large lectures than for their regular classes. Is this because of the size of the class they will face, or because their colleagues will be in attendance? 14 op. cit., Fein, p. 303.

46 PS Winter 1971



But, valuable as they are, courses in teaching political science are simply not enough. For teaching really to become "U" a more fundamental change in the profession's perception of legitimate ancillary fields of study is necessary. Only when political scientists come to recognize that courses in the "psychology of learning" or "teaching methods", properly taught, are as basic as minor fields for persons who will spend their lives teaching politics as are courses in elementary or advanced statistics will this part of the problem of preparing political scientists for teaching be on the road to solution.

47



Documents

On Making Teaching "U"