I managed to get the three chapters from Larry Cuban’s How Scholars Trumped Teachers: Change Without Reform in University Curriculum, Teaching, and Research, 1890-1990 and it became quite clear early on that the author believes the tension of teaching vs. research would, despite all efforts to the contrary, always exist. The chapters describe the ongoing problem that while university professors are hired to teach they are judged by their ability and productivity as researchers: publish or perish. Cuban examines the last one hundred years to show how attempts at reform were either ignored or watered down so much as to be inconsequential. Among his many and varied sources he cites numerous university reports written over the years that ask many of the same questions he does. His second chapter graphically represents attempts at change by examining the nature of the reforms, be they incremental or fundamental, narrow or wide in breath, and discusses how those reforms were undercut over time. His third chapter provides examples of how those university professors who favored teaching excellence over published scholarship were rare and short lived as a species in the university system. What struck me after considering some of our other readings was that despite the monolithic nature of the current system things may now change whether we wish them to or not.
Cuban points out how reduced teaching loads and therefore more research time are used as inducements to attract “star” professors to accept positions at universities. He cites this as evidence of the systemic opinion that research is more highly valued than teaching. This is perhaps justified though he fails to address (in the first three chapters at least) how in some cases the “star” professor may have been recruited in order to attract recognition for the university which in turn attracts “star” students, monetary donations, and grants. All of these can be said to impact teaching since they might result in scholarships and additional teaching materials. This does not, however, discount the effect of granting tenure to those who publish more often than those who do not. That evidence is difficult if not impossible to ignore. Does this mean then that teaching in universities will always suffer at the hands of research? I think and hope not.
It occurred to me that in one way society has had an unspoken arrangement with historians over the last century. Their research and published works are valued and desired and so tax dollars and tuitions are spent to provide a living for these individuals. But rather than just pay historians to live in the archives and write their monographs for other historians, society requires something in return. “You must teach our children.”
“Do I have to?” replies the researcher.
“Well…yes” answered the masses.
“Ok but that doesn’t mean I have to like it or even be any good at it” replied the reluctant professor.
This isn’t meant to suggest that there aren’t any good teachers or those who take great pride in their ability to pass on a love of history to their students. Clearly though, as is pointed out in the Cuban chapters, good teaching is not the first priority. The author points out that even when centers are established to help professors improve their teaching skills they go underutilized. Rationales such as “good teachers are born not made” are offered but what evidence suggests effective communication is an inherited trait? Surely some effort to acquire tips and methods such as those discussed by the professors in the Kornblith and Lasser reading, Teaching the American History Survey at the Opening of the Twenty-First Century would at least raise the level of some teachers from mediocre to good. The track record of ineffectual reform leaves some with the impression that if they ride out the occasional storm they will be left to research in peace. This attitude assumes that, as Michelle stated in her post, the more things change the more they will stay the same.
Something has changed though. Something outside of the university curriculum reviews is now in the picture, offering the possibility of shaking things up a bit more than previous attempts. Technology has entered the arena and is changing the way we think and learn about history. The Internet has altered the way we access materials and provides multi-sensory resources that were not integrated into historical works in the past. Not everyone has made use of this technology. Some such as Pauline Maier (See Kornblith and Lasser) seemingly don’t plan on doing so anytime soon:
“The latest technology appeals to me very little. I am dedicated to the written word in a form that can be easily read anywhere: under a tree, in bed, in a hall waiting for class, over lunch. Students attracted to the latest technology may not find my courses enticing, but so far a sufficient number do, and I see no need to offer more of what they are already getting plenty of everywhere else in our culture.”
One wonders if her position might change with the arrival of hand held devices with high quality screens that can then be read under a tree. I can’t help but think a basic point has been missed here. The objective of technology in the class room should not be to provide plenty more of “what they are already getting plenty of everywhere else in our culture” but rather to provide more access to historical writings, images, sounds, and primary sources. Like it or not technology is changing the university experience. We as historians are in a transitional period. The students are not. They will continue down this path ahead of us and leave us behind if necessary. What this means is that teaching can not remain a stepchild to research much longer. Researchers must now learn the tools of effective and modern teaching or fall from being mediocre educators just getting by to obviously inferior instructors that perhaps no amount of research can save. The final death knell may occur when digital publishing becomes main stream. Teachers such as Patricia Seed from this week’s reading, Teaching with the Web: Two Approaches provide examples of how future university professors can effect real changes in learning.
Will there be a future equilibrium where professors have mastered the technology and teaching to the point they can return to their emphasis on pure research? Perhaps but by then the efforts to improve teaching skills may be so ingrained they won’t easily be pushed to the back burner again.
Many of us have examined the Who Killed William Robinson website to see the way a real murder mystery from the 19th century is being used to introduce students to the practice of historical research. What many may not know is that that site is only one part of a much larger initiative involving five other sites and a series of smaller exercises. They are all part of a website called Great Unsolved Mysteries in Canadian History.