Academic Exchange Quarterly
Winter 2006 ISSN 1096-1453
Volume 10, Issue 4
To cite, use print source
rather than this on-line version which may not reflect print
copy format requirements or text lay-out and pagination.
Exploring Political Science’s
Signature Pedagogy
Mary C. Murphy,
Department of Government,
Theresa Reidy,
Department of Government,
Mary C.
Murphy and Theresa Reidy are lecturers in the Department of Government, University
College Cork, Ireland.
Abstract
The
international political science community has demonstrated a reluctance to
engage with the discourse of education. Academics tend to be concerned chiefly
with political science as an academic discipline and not with political science
as a form of education. This article explores the similarities and differences
in the signature pedagogy of political science across a number of countries. It
outlines the emergence and resilience of the pedagogy, its impact on student
learning and its future evolution.
Introduction
Shulman
(2005a: 1) identifies signature pedagogies as “types of teaching that organize
the fundamental ways in which future practitioners are educated for their
profession”. This recognises a link between what is taught in the classroom and
what is required in the workplace. There are three dimensions to any single
signature pedagogy - the surface structure, the deep structure and the implicit
structure (see Shulman 2005a). Implicitly and
collectively, these facets of the signature pedagogy define the culture of a
discipline and profession.
The Signature Pedagogy of Political Science
There are
many factors at play when discussing the signature teaching styles within
political science. Sorokos (in Gregusova
(ed), 2005) argues that the role of the political
science teacher is to help students develop critical minds. The idea of
critical thinking is one that is common across the humanities and social
sciences. The critical thinking theme is also explored by Martin (in Fry, Ketteridge and Marshall, 2003). He argues that in the Arts,
Humanities and Social Sciences, students engage with a body of knowledge,
rather than being trained in specific skills. In the course of this engagement,
students acquire methods of understanding and become analytical in their
approach to the material.
There is an
important distinction to be made between the professions and academic
disciplines. Political science is an academic discipline and it is not
primarily geared towards training for a specific profession. There is no single
career path for students of the discipline. Political science education equips
students with a wide variety of transferable skills and most importantly, an
enquiring and critical mind. Students can enter a wide variety of employments
in diverse sectors.
Political
science may not be a professional area but Shulman’s
concept of disciplinary styles can provide important insights into the culture
and pedagogy of political science. There are specific styles of teaching which
are common across the discipline and there is an emerging emphasis on teaching
styles that encourage critical thinking in the student. In the course of a
political science education students are treated as independent learners and
the styles of teaching reflect this.
According to Garrett: ‘The developing nature of each subject suggests
that the individual disciplines of the social sciences are growing apart’
(1999:310). A
difference is emerging between the more practical and skills based disciplines
of economics and psychology and the discursive disciplines such as sociology
and political science. As a consequence, the pedagogy of political science has
in some cases remained relatively traditional and static in orientation. The
signature teaching styles are those traditionally associated with the humanities
and social sciences, a reliance on lectures, tutorials and private study tend
to be the teaching and learning staple of the discipline.
The large
lecture is the dominant experience for many political science undergraduates
across
Apart from
the standard lecture many students of political science will experience small
group teaching. Tutorials to supplement/accompany lectures are offered in the
early years of programmes with seminar style sessions, usually in the later
stages of the programme. The disciplinary style in political science evolves as
students proceed through their political science education. The early
experience is of passive learning in large lectures but final year courses can
be demanding, requiring students to take theoretical concepts and actively
apply them to a real-life situation in small classes. Sorokos
(in Gregusova (ed), 2005)
believes students should reach a scholarly level of discussion within these
classes.
Boggard,
Carey, Dodd, Repath and Whitaker (2005) argue that in
political science, the opportunity for deep learning is greatly enhanced by
small group teaching. Their work suggests that surface learning is more likely
to occur in a large lecture. It is only in small classes that students have the
opportunity to engage directly with the material, an experience which is
required for deep learning to occur. Across the discipline, the importance of
small group teaching is widely accepted. The “
The
signature pedagogy of political science is essentially, a combination of large
lecture and smaller group sessions. The style mix is usually determined more by
the educational system within the country than by educational principles.
It is
inaccurate to see signature pedagogies as unchanging and inflexible. Small
group teaching is increasing, as is training in the use of new technologies.
Lee (2003) argues that political science teaching has been heavily influenced
by technological advances and that teaching has embraced new developments. This
has altered the disciplinary style somewhat and is making an important
contribution to political science education.
The
signature pedagogy is more complex than the teaching styles of the discipline. Shulman argues that the way knowledge is treated within a
discipline is a central feature of the pedagogy. This has particular relevance
for political science which is divided by a methodological schism. The
qualitative/quantitative divide greatly influences what is accepted as
knowledge on each side of the divide. It also impacts on a further element of Shulman’s signature pedagogy, the idea of judgements and
values within a discipline. Furthermore, the discipline has been influenced
both by normative arguments and by behaviouralism
[1]. There has been extensive discussion of this divide and also of how it
impacts upon students [2].
The divide
is most evident in comparisons between the
Accounting for the Signature Pedagogy
The absence
of a professional or vocational component to the political science discipline
is one means of accounting for why the signature pedagogy has become the
dominant approach. Garrett outlines the functions of the key aspects of the
political science pedagogy - lectures (to set the scene), tutorials (to
discuss, analyse or apply) and private study (to develop underpinning
knowledge) (1999:313). Collectively and implicitly, these contribute to the
acquisition of key cognitive, analytical, communication, technical, social and
IT skills. In other words, the signature pedagogy is an effective means of
achieving the key learning outcomes associated with political science, hence its endurance is understandable. However, the
challenges to the traditional political science pedagogy should not be
overlooked. Resource issues and increasing research demands are increasingly
the drivers of university priorities and the implications for pedagogy are
significant.
The rapid
growth in student numbers in European universities since the 1990s has resulted
in more lecture-based teaching and reduced small group teaching. Growth in
student numbers without parallel growth in staff numbers has reduced the
capacity of departments to provide seminars, tutorials and small class sizes.
A further
factor impacting on the political science pedagogy is the changing nature of
the university environment. Third-level institutions are increasingly focusing
on research as the driver of educational development. Although some recent developments
challenge this view, [3] many suggest that the result is a diminished respect
for teaching within the third level sector [4]. The political science community
is in some ways complicit here. It prioritises research and has not engaged in
any considered discourse on the subject of teaching and learning.
For
example, the Political Studies Association of Ireland has not developed any
discussion on teaching and learning in political science, Irish Political Studies does not publish material/research on
teaching (most likely because Irish political scientists are not producing such
material) and annual conferences do not typically address questions of
pedagogy. The Irish experience is not unusual in this context and the same
point can be made about the Political Studies Association (UK) and the European
Consortium for Political Research. The research emphasis within the political
science community does not extend to the subject of teaching and learning. This
is not to suggest that the process of teaching and learning in political
science is flawed or unsound. On the contrary, despite the many challenges,
political science as a discipline remains respected. Nevertheless, a more
considered awareness and collective discourse on the issue of teaching and
learning may result in the evolution of a form of teaching which is innovative,
creative and increasingly relevant to today’s changing global environment [5].
Motivating Students & Enhancing Learning
Political
sciences’ signature pedagogy has remained relatively static. A traditional
reliance on lectures, tutorials and private study remains the contemporary
basis for teaching and learning in political science. Although the format has
its merits, it also has its shortcomings, particularly in the context of the
contemporary university environment.
A new
university environment has been created as a consequence of wider social and
economic changes. Biggs notes that:
In the days when university classes contained highly selected students,
enrolled in their faculty of choice, the traditional lecture and tutorial
seemed to work well enough. However, the expansion, restructuring and
refinancing of the tertiary sector in the 1990s has meant that classes are not
only larger but quite diversified in terms of student ability, motivation and
cultural background (1999:1).
This is a
considerable challenge facing the political science discipline. Goldsmith &
Berndtson suggest that:
As labour markets and students demand more specialised knowledge, old
traditional disciplines, such as political science and sociology, may not be as
attractive to students as they used to be (2002:70).
This
manifests itself in a situation whereby the character of political science
students is changing. The challenge for lecturers is to motivate (and inspire)
a body of students who are increasingly job oriented and less likely to value
education for the sake of education. Furthermore, as higher education becomes
increasingly accessible, the quality of students also changes as entry
requirements for political science courses fall. This creates new expectations
and challenges for the teaching and learning experience. However, the signature
pedagogy has not changed significantly. According to Garrett:
‘What has changed is the style, content and often the process of each of these
activities’ (1999:313). Lecturing styles have become more interactive,
small group work has become more effective and inclusive, information
technology is increasingly central to the delivery of lectures and private
study is informed by academic advice on reading lists and internet sources.
Teaching
however is only one means of motivating students and encouraging learning. One
of the key dilemmas for political science lecturers is that motivating a new
era of students can be nigh impossible when an appreciation of education is
based solely on its outputs. For disciplines such as political science, which
is neither professional nor vocational in orientation, motivating and inspiring
becomes a particularly difficult challenge which requires marrying creativity
and innovation with respect for the tradition and integrity of the discipline.
Learning from the Pedagogies of Other
Disciplines
Shulman
notes that signature pedagogies, despite their distinctiveness, also share a
set of common features which have proven to be durable and robust components of
the teaching and learning process.
Indeed I believe these features evolved precisely because they
contribute to increasing student learning of professionally valued
understandings, skills and dispositions (Shulman,
2005a)
Political
sciences’ reliance on the traditional format of lectures, tutorials and private
study may appear outdated. However, for many political science lecturers, the
format works. There is an increasing literature and discourse on new and
innovative approaches to the teaching of political science. Change however, has
been slow and incremental and has largely taken place ‘within the traditional
teaching framework rather than in radical departures from it’ (Garrett, 1999:312).
Unlike
professional education, the study of political science is in many ways about
learning for the sake of learning and knowledge, it is
not about learning to engage in practice (see Shulman,
2005b). As Garrett points out: ‘The subjects [social sciences] are seen as
academic rather than vocational or professional’ (1999:312). This therefore
imposes some limits on teaching and learning experimentation within the
discipline. That is not to suggest however, that little can be learned from
teaching and learning practices within other disciplines. On the contrary,
political science has much to learn from the approaches and practices of other
disciplines. However, the extent to which the teaching of political science can
be radically changed is open to question.
The
learning of a range of skills is implicit in the current methods used to teach
political science in universities. The emergence of techniques such as enquiry
based learning in the human and physical sciences have greatly enhanced skills
based learning. Political science could benefit from greater engagement with
these techniques. In particular, enquiry based learning has a lot to offer
political science.
Conclusion
An increasing engagement and awareness of the issues around teaching and learning is likely to further develop and improve traditional teaching practices. The discipline has witnessed greater diversity in relation to forms of assessment and the effective use of information technology. Many of these developments have been a consequence of engagement with other disciplines. This engagement however is limited in its impact, allowing political science to maintain a signature pedagogy which has evolved yet remains distinct and effective.
Endnotes
[1] Behaviouralism is an approach to the study
of political science which concentrates on observable patterns of behaviour
which must be susceptible to empirical testing. For a more detailed discussion,
see March and Stoker, 2002.
[2] For an example, see Rothstein, 2004.
[3] For example, a number of European universities
offer postgraduate programmes in teaching and learning; recognize excellence in
teaching by awarding funding and teaching awards to
[4] New university funding models which disproportionately
reward research; restructuring of
[5] Experiments in the use of
Enquiry-Based Learning, for example, may prove useful and effective for the
development of teaching practice in political science. Other non-Irish
political science associations and
References
Biggs, John
(1999) Teaching for quality learning at university,
Buckingham: Open University Press
Boggard, A.,
Cannon,
Robert and Newble, David (2000) A
handbook for teachers in universities and colleges: A guide to improving
teaching methods, 4th edition,
Donovan, Claire and Larkin Phil (2006) ‘The problem of political science
and practical politics’, Politics, Vol. 26.
Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., and Marshall, S., (eds) (2003) A
Handbook of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.
Garrett,
Helen (1999) ‘Key aspects of teaching and learning in the social sciences and
law’, in Fry, Heather; Ketteridge, Steve and
Marshall, Stephanie (eds.) A handbook for
teaching and learning in Higher Education: Enhancing
Goldsmith, M., and Berndtson, E., (2002)
‘Teaching Challenges for Political Science in
Gregusova, G., (ed) (2005) How To Teach Political Science; The
Experience of First Time University Teachers, Vol
2.,
Huber, M.T., and
Morreale, S.P., (2002) Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning;
Exploring
Lee, D., (2003) ‘New Technologies in the Politics Classroom: Using Internet Teaching to Support Teaching and Learning’, Politics, Vol. 23.
Marsh, D., and
Stoker, G., (eds) (2002) Theory and Methods in Political Science,
Rothstein, B.,
(2004) ‘Is Political Science Producing Technically Competent Barbarians’, European Political Science, Vol. 1.
Shulman, L.S., (2005a) ‘Signature
Pedagogies in the Professions’, Daedalus, Journal of
the
Shulman, L.S., (2005b) ‘Pedagogies of Uncertainty’, Liberal Education.
(http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp05/le-sp05feature2.cfm)