Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-9xpg2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-01T12:13:33.352Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multiple Methods, More Success: How to Help Students of All Learning Styles Succeed in Quantitative Political Analysis Courses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2005

Amy R. Gershkoff
Amy R. Gershkoff
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is often advised to “know your audience” before giving a lecture, and this is especially important when we lecture to students. Moreover, knowing your audience is critical in quantitative analysis courses, where it can be especially challenging to teach mostly math-phobic students. But it is in quantitative analysis courses where faculty may know their audience the least. While many subfields in the discipline have implemented pedagogical innovations such as seminar-style discussion, simulations, and even learning communities, quantitative methods courses seem to be the last hold-out for the traditional lecture format.

Information

Type
THE TEACHER
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 299 - 304
Copyright
© 2005 by the American Political Science Association

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bayne Rowan. 1995. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Critical Review and Practical Guide. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Brock Kathy L., and Beverly J. Cameron. 1999. “Enlivening Political Science Courses with Kolb's Learning Preference Model.” PS: Political Science and Politics 32 (June): 251– 256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin Keith. 2000. “Johnny Might Not be Math-Challenged; His Problem Could Just Be that He's an Auditory Learner.” In “Devlin's Angle,” a publication of The Mathematical Association of America Online (MAA Online). www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_1_00.html. Accessed December 19, 2002.Google Scholar
Fox Richard L., and Shirley A. Ronkowski. 1997. “Learning Styles of Political Science Students.” PS: Political Science and Politics 30 (December): 732– 737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner Howard. 1983. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hibbison Eric. 1999. “Multiple Intelligences.” Based on the research of Rene Diaz-Lefebrve. http://vccslitonline.cc.va.us/mrcte/multiple.htm. Accessed June 10, 2004.Google Scholar
Jung C. 1923. Psychological Types. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
Kantrowitz Barbara, and Pat Wingert. 2000. “Doctor's Orders: Pediatrician Mel Levine Wants to Revolutionize American Education by Showing Teachers How Children Think.” Newsweek, October 2, 45– 48.Google Scholar
Kolb D. A. 1985. Learning Style Inventory. Boston: McBer and Co.Google Scholar
Math Matters. 1998. “Learning Styles.” http://www.mathmatters.net/learnsty.htm. Accessed December 19, 2002. Also available on CDROM from Stockon Multimedia Productions.Google Scholar
Myers-Briggs. 1995. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
“Personality and Cognitive Learning Styles of Academically Talented Students.” Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth. http://cty.jhu.edu/research/topical2.html. Accessed December 19, 2002.Google Scholar
Russell Martin and Associates. “Accelerated Learning.” White Paper. http://www.russellmartin.com/ALCutter.asp. Accessed June 10, 2004.Google Scholar
Silver Harvey F., Richard W. Strong, and Matthew J. Perini. 2000. So Each May Learn: Integrating Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligences. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar