Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T04:58:07.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models of Effective Teaching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2020

Jack O'Neill
Jack O'Neill*
Affiliation:
California State University, Northridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Probably the fundamental criticism within the discipline concerning conventional classroom interaction dynamics comes from our sister subsidiary, political socialization. This criticism takes two forms. One version focuses on the teacher's classroom role behavior. Dawson and Prewitt, for example argue that the democratic or authoritarian leadership style of an instructor is the one aspect of the teacher's role considered most important to the political socialization process. The instructor may or may not stress “disciplined learning of the material presented, rigid adherence to rules, and a deferential attitude toward himself as the authority figure.” The authors continue: The crucial notion for political socialization is that these conditions affect the political outlook of the students. Democratic leadership by the teacher fosters attitudes and skills consonant with democratic values. The authoritarian teacher induces his charges to think according to hierarchy and deference to power.

Type
Research Article
Information
News for Teachers of Political Science , Volume 37 , Spring 1983 , pp. 16 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Dawson, Richard E. and Prewitt, Kenneth, (1969). Political Socialization. Boston: Little, Brown, p. 166.Google Scholar

2. Rogers, Carl R., (1966). “The Facilitation of Significant Learning.” In Siegel, L. (ed.), Contemporary Theories of Instruction. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing, pp. 45–46.Google Scholar

3. Patrick, John J., (1977). “Political Socialization and Political Education in Schools.” In Renshon, Stanley Allen (ed.), Handbook of Political Socialization. New York: The Free Press, p. 204.Google Scholar

4. For an interesting exception to this trend, see Seeman, Esther Millon, (Spring, 1977). “Transactional Theory in the College Classroom.” News for Teachers of Political Science, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

5. Botsch, Robert E., (Fall, 1979). “PSI in American Government.” News for Teachers of Political Science, pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar

6. Cleary, Robert E., (1971). Political Education in the American Democracy. Scranton, Pa.: Intext Educational Publishers, p. 3.Google Scholar

7. Patrick, op.cit., pp. 192-193.

8. Boocock, Sarane S., (1972). An Introduction to the Sociology of Learning. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, p. 139.Google Scholar

9. Hamachek, Don E., (1972). “Toward More Effective Teaching.” In Hamachek, Don E. (ed.), Human Dynamics in Psychology and Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 241–242.Google Scholar

10. Boocock, op.cit., pp. 143-144.

11. Culbert, Samuel A., (1969). “Training Change Agents for Business and Public Administration.” In Runkel, Philip, et al., (eds.), The Changing College Classroom, p. 210.Google Scholar

12. McKeachie, Wilbert J., (1978). Teaching Tips: A Guidebook for the Beginning College Teacher. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, p. 53.Google Scholar

13. Patrick, op.cit., pp. 195 passim.

14. Highet, Gilbert, (1958). The Art of Teaching. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, pp. 174–263.Google Scholar

15. McKeachie, op.cit., pp. 35-67.

16. Harrison, Roger, (1969). “Classroom Innovation: A Design Primer.” In Runkel, Philip, et.al., (eds.). The Changing College Classroom, p. 335.Google Scholar

17. Milton, Ohmer, (1972). Alternatives to the Traditional. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p. 22Google Scholar. Second quote is from Boocock, op.cit., p. 132. Third quote is from McKeachie, op.cit., pp. 238-239.

18. Boocock, op. cit., pp. 151-152.

19. McKeachie, op.cit., pp. 27ff, 62ff, 207 passim, and 54 respectively.

20. Ibid., p. 203.

21. Hamachek, op.cit., pp. 234 and 237.

22. Bronowski, J., (no date of publication given). The Common Sense of Science. New York: Vintage Books, pp. 69ff.Google Scholar

23. Popper, Karl R., (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper Torchbooks, p. 218.Google Scholar

24. Hampden-Turner, Charles (1970). Radical Man. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman. Information discussed in this paper comes from pp. 184–192.Google Scholar

25. Popper, Karl R., (1959). The Poverty of Historicism. New York: Harper Torchbooks, p. 15.Google Scholar

26. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Phoenix Books, p. 93.Google Scholar

27. Bruner, Jerome S., (1968). Toward a Theory of Instruction. New York: W.W. Norton, p. 165.Google Scholar

28. Ibid., Second quote is from Leonard M. Lansky, p. 295, and third quote is from Samuel A. Culbert, p. 218 in Philip Runkel et.al., (eds.). The Changing College Classroom.

29. Rohter, Ira S., (1975). “A Social-Learning Approach to Political Socialization.” In Schwartz, David C. and Schwartz, Sandra Kenyon (eds.). New Directions in Political Socialization. New York: The Free Press, pp. 129–162, passim.Google Scholar

30. Berelson, Bernard and Steiner, Gary A., (1964). Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, p. 245.Google Scholar

31. First quote is from Bruner, op.cit., p. 43. Second quote is from Harrison, op.cit., p. 336.

32. Kuhn, op.cit., p. 68.

33. Milton, op.cit., pp. 129-130.

34. For a view of the classroom social system considerably at odds with the one advanced herein, see Boocock, op.cit., pp. 311-312 passim.

35. Willhoite, Fred H. Jr. (1976). “Primates and Political Authority: A Biobehavioral Perspective.“ American Political Science Review 70: 1110–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar