Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Over 400 undergraduate students participated in this study that examined professor-student e-mail communication, interpersonal relationship and teaching evaluation. Respondents report that 91% of the their professors had sent them e-mails. The most frequent e-mail communication was about academic tasks while social-relationship communication was less frequent. Professors, likely communication initiators, e-mailed students more frequently than the other way round. Professors and students exhibited a higher degree of reciprocity for social-relationship communication than for task e-mails. E-mail communication contributed positively to both professor-student relationship and teaching evaluation. Professor e-mail helpfulness, reply promptness, and e-mail frequency for social-relationship were the most significant predictors of both professor-student relationship and teaching evaluation. A discussion of implications is provided.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The pressures of the early 20th century—industrialization, the loss of the frontier, and increasing technological efficiency—worried progressive thinkers. Their response was to
attempt to harness individual desires and obligations for “the social”. Willa Cather was concerned about these same pressures, but she offered a radically different solution. Instead of beginning with a vision for society, she portrayed how an individual could reclaim the imagination in order to preserve what is human. Cather’s The Professor’s House shows a thoughtful individual who eventually finds social obligation debilitating. His best hope to cope with the pressures of modernity is to sublimate his pre-social desires into wonder and the imagination, which form the basis for art, invention, and the best friendships.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: “Responsive Lecture.” It appears in almost every handout I have received at teaching seminars focused on active learning as an alternative to the traditional lecture. Yet, none of these handouts does more than define the concept. A “responsive lecture” is generally defined as one in which students generate a list of open-ended questions about course material and then rank the importance of the questions. The instructor uses the ranking of the questions as the outline for the lecture and/or discussion. In theory, according to Bonwell (1991), this method forces students to actively consider course material in order to develop specific questions and is superior to the traditional, passive lecture model since students are more invested in a lecture whose content they have chosen. Despite the appeal, the literature seems to be silent on whether or not this style of lecture is effective. In response, this paper will explore the use of the responsive lecture in several upper-division comparative politics and two large introductory courses on international relations. This paper will specifically address the pedagogical justifications for using this alternative lecture format, how this lecture alternative can be adopted to a number of different contexts and class sizes, how technology can make this lecture format even more effective and manageable (although all you need is a chalkboard!), and the format’s impact on teaching effectiveness via a comparative study of teaching evaluations.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: (to be uploaded)

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The goal of my paper is to present France?s particular university landscape. For a North American the French system seems very complex. And in fact it is! The paper will thus present the numerous power struggles within the French academic system in order to show how it cuts many French scholars from cross-cultural dialogue and even from a fruitful domestic knowledge cumulation. The aim is not to ?accuse? the French system (in comparison with other systems) but to try to clarify the different sectors where struggles can happen. The first level where power struggle happens is between Paris and the rest of France (la province). If you are from a Parisian university or a Grande École (another French peculiarity) and you try to have a job in a ?provincial? university you can run into difficulties having a post. Usually, a ?local? will have the job. On the other hand, for a ?provincial?, it?s very hard to have a post in Paris or achieve the agrégation to become a Professeur des universités. This introduces the second peculiarity of the French system: the difference between a Maître de conférences des universités, a Professeur des universités and a research fellow (chercheur). The difference between the two first is hierarchical while the one between the two firsts and the third concerns their functions. The firsts are primarily supposed to teach (and write some things) while the latter are supposed to do ?research? (and incidentally) teach. Of course there is rivalry amongst all of them. The argument of the paper is the following: the competition between those different groups (Parisians against Provincials, Professeurs against Chercheurs) weakens the French International Relations (IR) community. Internal rivalries are so strong that they impede the development of an effective contribution from the French scholars to the international IR debate. Worst! It tends to hinder the development of a fertile dialogue in an otherwise rich intellectual national production. The paper is not normative. It will not advance propositions to transform the French academic practice. In the meantime, by pinpointing the ?peculiarities? of this system, it hopes to contribute to, first, a better understanding of this system and, second, to draw attention of the French scholars themselves on there own weakness.