The structure of an undergraduate major and student learning: A cross-institutional study of political science programs at thirty-two colleges and universities

Abstract

Is there a relationship between the way an undergraduate major in the social sciences is structured and student learning? In this paper, I address the relationship between the structure of the undergraduate major and student learning using data from the political science discipline. To assess the impact of the structure of the major on student achievement, a 29-item electronic questionnaire was employed. I find a very strong relationship between the degree to which a political science major program is structured and student knowledge, even when controlling for plausible alternative explanations for student performance. The results support the notion that majors that are characterized by a sequenced set of courses, the existence of a senior seminar or capstone course, and a required research methodology course taken early on in a Student's career, better prepare political science students than do relatively unstructured majors.

Is there a relationship between the way an undergraduate major in the social sciences is structured and student learning? This is an extremely important and central question for social scientists in higher education for two reasons: (1) in this era of “assessment,” social science disciplines are coming under increasing pressure to demonstrate their utility in undergraduate education; (2) unlike other factors that affect student success (such as student ability and ambition) departments can more easily manipulate the structure of undergraduate majors (at least relatively speaking). Thus, understanding the relationship between the structure of the undergraduate major and student development is potentially a key element in instituting effective reforms in the undergraduate curriculum at colleges and universities across the country.

In this paper, I address the relationship between the structure of the undergraduate major and student learning using data from the political science discipline. Indeed, there has been considerable interest in recent years in political science as to whether the structure of the undergraduate major has an impact on student learning. Some scholars have argued that the way a major is structured directly affects student development. For instance Wahlke (1991) criticized those political science undergraduate programs that had only a few required courses and other courses were offered as electives without any effort at sequencing them. Indeed, both the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) report on the Liberal Arts and Sciences, and the report produced by the APSA Task Force on Political Science (Wahlke, 1991), noted that unstructured programs are incapable of promoting the necessary skills required of political science students. The AACU report argued that only a consciously structured major that promotes sequential learning creates the “building blocks of knowledge that lead to more sophisticated understanding and … leaps of the imagination and efforts at synthesis” (AACU, 1985, p. 24). The development of thinking skills cannot be accomplished “merely by cumulative exposure to more and more … subject matter”. Majors which emphasize breadth at the expense of depth result in “shallow learning unless students also grasp the assumptions, arguments, approaches, and controversies that have shaped particular claims and findings” (Wahlke, 1991, p. 49).

Thus, how a political science major is structured is posited to be related to student learning. However, despite this assertion, relatively little empirical work has been done that systematically examines the relationship between the structure of the major and the development of political science undergraduates. Some works have described programs that seek to emulate the recommendations made by the APSA Task Force and AACU reports, but do not offer evidence that such programs have a positive impact on student learning (Breuning, Parker, & Ishiyama, 2001). Other works have sought to establish a connection between the structure of the major and student reasoning styles by comparing two institutions (Ishiyama & Hartlaub, 2003). However, no studies to date have systematically compared across a number of institutions to demonstrate an empirical connection between the structure of the political science major and student learning. This paper seeks to investigate the purported connection between the structure of the political science major and some aspects of student learning by analyzing data collected from a survey of (32) colleges and universities from across the United States.

Notes

1 A raw total of 40 responses were received, but 8 did not include enough usable information (such as reported percentile scores for the MFAT) to be incorporated into this study.

2 Political science seniors at Truman State University have been taking this Nationally Normed test since 1990.

3 The composite ACT and SAT scores were made comparable in the final calculation for this variable.