Essay 1 - Test Bank Instanttestbanksinstant.eu/samples/Solution Manual for Struggle... · Web...

Full file at http://testbanksinstant.eu/ Solution-Manual-for-Struggle-for-Democracy,-2012-Election-Edition-11-e

Essay 1

IMPLEMENTING DELIBERATIVE CIVIC EDUCATION: PERSUASION AND SKILL BUILDINGJ. Cherie StrachanCentral Michigan UniversityOnce students are getting involved in the political process, it’s time to fine-tune their communication skills. One way to do this is to supplement substantive classroom learning with activities intended to develop political skills and identities. In the American Government classroom, deliberative civic education—or decision-making characterized by discussion among equals—is an approach that helps students identify themselves as both qualified and obligated to resolve thorny public problems.

The connection between public education and the cultivation of such identities have long been celebrated in the United States. In fact, one of the oldest goals of a liberal arts education—as well as of the discipline of political science—has been to build knowledge and prepare students for civic and political leadership. Many U.S. colleges and universities were founded with the purpose of cultivating civic

download full file at http://testbankinstant.com


and political leaders, while the American Political Science Association at one time dedicated considerable resources to assessing and promoting civic education. Despite this shared history, both higher education institutions and political scientists must often pursue multiple agendas. These alternative priorities often overshadow the goal of citizenship development.

By 1933, for instance, the president of the University of Chicago proclaimed, “Education for citizenship has no place in the university.” While such a claim would cause controversy today, many believe that institutions of higher education often fail to fulfill this fundamental mission.1 The former president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities noted not simply neglect but resistance to teaching democratic principles on college campuses.2 Perhaps responding to this environment, more than half of college seniors report that college has had little or no effect on their plans to vote in the future.3 Colleges and universities have embraced service and community-based learning, but few attempt to teach students how to influence political outcomes Distracted by the myriad agendas of higher education institutions, administrators have often paid scant attention to civic education and have, perhaps mistakenly, assumed that fulfilling general education requirements will adequately prepare students for public life.

Hence, the responsibility for civic education has typically fallen to faculty members. Even for faculty members in political science, however, changes in higher education have diminished the ability and motivation to focus on students’ character development. As many of our personal experiences surely verify, higher education research indicates that faculty members at many four-year colleges and universities have been under increasing demands to focus on research productivity.5 The result is that professors at these institutions have less time to spend directly with students. Kuh et al., for example,



argue that retiring professors, who are more apt to be student-centered, are often replaced by younger faculty members who have been socialized to prioritize research.6 Unless one’s research agenda focuses on youth political participation, the time available for students is eroded. This trend is exacerbated by reliance on part-time faculty and increasing class sizes—budget-balancing approaches that are being adopted with increasing frequency on university, college and community college campuses across the country. Consequently, “avenues to maintaining a sense of campus community and connecting faculty with students out of the classroom are increasingly limited.”7 Even when professors debate over the best ways to deliver a college education, we typically focus on the substantive content of our courses.8 But academic disciplines have become increasingly specialized, and course content has narrowed to focus on professional training. As Peter Levine persuasively argues, no academic discipline is dedicated to the study of civics, especially as political science now emphasizes descriptive, empirical insights into political actors’ behavior rather than normative assessments of good citizenship.9 It seems that faculty members often share administrators’ mistaken assumption that acquiring substantive knowledge will adequately prepare our students for their civic responsibilities. Yet research clearly demonstrates that classroom learning, even learning about political phenomena in a political science class, is not the best predictor of long-term political participation throughout adulthood.10

The Current Undergraduate CohortThe limited effectiveness of traditional higher education and faculty approaches to civic education is highlighted by the changing landscape of youth political participation over the past several decades. As the introduction to this text documents, what worked well



enough for prior generations of college students may simply not be enough to stimulate political participation from the current cohort of undergraduates. These findings are underscored by generational shifts in the definition of good citizenship. The National Survey of Civic Engagement (NSCE), for example, reveals that, unlike older Americans, members of the current young generation have an apolitical and passive view of citizenship. When surveyed, 58 percent agreed that “simply being a good person” meets the criteria of good citizenship.11 During focus group discussions, no one from this generation volunteered definitions of citizenship that included obligations to the broader community.12 Unlike older focus group participants, young people repeatedly endorsed the notion that choosing not to participate in politics is just as legitimate as deciding to become involved.13

Calls for Renewal in Higher Education and Political ScienceGiven these trends, the goal of citizenship development has been reprioritized both within the discipline of political science and across the campuses of higher education institutions. As early as 1998, the American Political Science Task Force on Civic Education issued a warning that the viability of democracy was at stake.14 In 2006, the directors reiterated this warning of the NSCE survey, who claim, “Because government matters, participation in civil society . . . cannot substitute for voting, working for a party or candidate, or contacting one’s elected official about a policy concern.”15 In the interim, teaching and research efforts that focus on student development have flourished. This is evidenced by the launch of the new Journal of Political Science Education, where readers find reoccurring



arguments about the most effective pedagogy for promoting participation. More evidence is the increase in publication of scholarly works assessing the effects of civic education interventions. Evidence of this resurgence can also be found in the sheer number of recent scholarly books and teaching materials focused on drawing young people back in to the political process.16 Such developments within political science mirror efforts to mobilize higher education institutions in the same cause. Administrators, educators, and policymakers have repeatedly reached the conclusion that a recommitment to civic education in higher education is now necessary.17 Colleges and universities across the country have been called upon to rededicate themselves to the task of grooming students for civic and, explicitly, political leadership.18 In a recent work summarizing such concerns, Derek Bok, former Harvard President exhorts professors to address the political needs of our students.19

The Role of Deliberative Civic ActionBok leaves open his call for action, asking educators to do whatever we can in order to promote long-term political participation among our students.20 This strategy is an adept one because a successful response to the complex problem of re-engaging a disillusioned generation will surely require an array of varied and overlapping efforts. Yet the argument that effective citizenship ought to be promoted by enhancing citizens’ deliberative communication skills is hardly a new one in the United States. As early as 1824, Thomas Jefferson justified his support for public education by claiming: “In a republican nation whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of first importance.” Support for Jefferson’s sentiment is readily found among political scientists,21 as well as among higher education scholars. In



2003, Anne Colby et al., for example, promoted skills associated with successful deliberation, such as “a well-developed capacity for effective communication, including moral and political discourse,” as the cornerstone of civic education.22 In a recent continuation of work in this vein, Colby et al. dedicate an entire chapter to the task of promoting political learning through deliberation because such skills are “just as important as substantive knowledge for thoughtful political engagement.”23 Reliance on reasoned argument is not only a valued outcome in Western culture, it is also “central to the entire enterprise of higher education.”24 Offering deliberative civic education as a new pedagogy may seem like the equivalent of preaching to the choir. Most faculty members already agree that deliberative reasoning skills are valuable, and many will claim that they already incorporate activities that cultivate deliberation in their classrooms. Our faith in a deliberative pedagogy is well grounded. Works drawing on survey data have documented a correlation between discussions of contemporary controversial political issues and political engagement.25

Most recently, David Campbell finds that the key feature of a civics course with the most impact on anticipated political participation is an open and supportive classroom environment.26 In short, what we do with students during class time is at least as relevant to promoting political engagement as the substantive content of our political science courses. Such findings suggest that concerns over youth political participation can be addressed simply by encouraging students to discuss current events in the classroom. Faculty should consider developing deliberative exercises, and these exercises should take a variety of different forms to suit the specific needs of different institutions, instructors, classes, and students. But data collected from experimental designs with deliberative civic education indicate that successfully incorporating such activities may be more difficult than it appears. We should be careful to draw on the historical circumstances



and characteristics of young people today, in combination with scholarly work on persuasive appeals, to determine how to structure these deliberative activities for the greatest benefit to our students.

Implementing Deliberative Civic EducationDespite well-established theoretical arguments and survey findings linking deliberation and political participation, deliberative civics programs, aimed primarily at the broader electorate rather than young people, have had mixed results. David Ryfe’s meta-analysis of research in this vein concludes that such efforts may do little to enhance the quality or quantity of political participation, and that deliberative interaction often increases levels of anxiety and frustration.27 Initial studies of the National Issues Forum, for example, failed to find a correlation between participation and future political activity. Moreover, participation appeared to exacerbate cynicism about the effectiveness of group political action. Counteracting such reactions among young people is especially important as they begin their political socialization.

Providing Proper Motivation by Persuading Students that Deliberation Works

Deliberative educational initiatives sometimes fail because they don’t connect to practical outcomes. Most deliberative democracy projects focus on improving citizens’ deliberative skills in the abstract, but do not allow them to wield real political influence.28 In some cases,



deliberative initiatives, for example, encourage citizens to take on the role of consultants who offer suggestions to policymakers. But policymakers are not typically required to follow citizens’ advice.29 In short, most deliberative initiatives are divorced from the traditional mechanism of citizen influence—collective action activities. Clearly, classroom attempts to promote deliberation face similar challenges. Students are asked to participate in deliberative exercises, but outcomes are not likely to affect decisions made in their own classrooms and universities. True deliberation, with the goal of discovering workable solutions to some shared problem, requires negotiation and compromise, and, often, uncomfortable interactions with peers. Most people will choose not to deliberate without proper motivation. They must believe that their efforts are tied to an important outcome.30 Today’s students seem less aware than prior generations that important and binding decisions can be reached through deliberative processes.

Many scholars believe that America’s youngest cohorts have been socialized at a time when participation in important voluntary organizations has been declining,31 while those who question this claim typically acknowledge that American associational life is in a state of transition.32 Today’s young people also have spent far more time in supervised, coached, and tutored activities than any prior generation.33 Journalists’ accounts, for example, indicate that many college students have been overscheduled with individual lessons and tutoring sessions since childhood.34 These activities have taught them skills that promote individualized professional advancement, not collective decision-making. Many young people also appear to distrust group processes for fear that they could negatively impact individual success.35 These characteristics suggest that young people may not have interacted in enough group settings to develop trust in others.36 It is likely that young people—even more than other Americans—must



be persuaded that deliberation is valuable. Most civic education pedagogies do little to address this deficiency in our students’ natural political socialization. Historically, the dominant approach to formal civic learning in the United States has been classic liberal political theory, which focuses on providing students with knowledge about government institutions and individual rights. Meanwhile, the most prominent alternative to liberal theory—communitarianism—encourages students to develop deeper connections to their communities through service activities.37

While both approaches can be beneficial,38 neither emphasizes the importance of deliberation to successful collective action. Liberalism stresses the importance of individual political choices; communitarianism highlights the collective nature of public life, but it downplays the role groups play in developing and pursuing an explicitly political agenda. These circumstances suggest that in-class deliberation should be implemented in a way that convinces students that such activities are important in collective decision-making. One approach is to tie deliberation to tangible outcomes, as direct experience provides the most powerful source of learning.39 When logistics allow, students should use a deliberative process to make decisions regarding topics to be covered throughout the course, the nature of assignments and projects or even the timing and type of exams given. Students might also be asked to deliberate with one another regarding changes they would like to see implemented on their own college or university campuses. Students who can work together toward these goals will learn a valuable set of skills that are readily transferable to the political process. Deliberation takes time, so tight semester schedules and over-enrolled classes—not to mention pragmatic considerations on campus—may make these suggestions difficult to implement on a regular basis.

Fortunately, alternative and effective sources of learning



include verbal persuasion and virtual experiences.40 If students can be persuaded that deliberation is a vital way to be influential, they ought to be more willing to hone their deliberative skills in the classroom. American politics are replete with both historical and contemporary examples of citizens who have banded together in grassroots organizations to influence elections and public policy outcomes. Sharing these stories in the most dramatic way possible, while underscoring the importance of deliberative decision-making in successful collective action efforts, should help to convince students that learning how to deliberate is a worthwhile endeavor.

Verbal persuasion alone may not be enough to encourage students to engage in deliberation when their participation in classroom discussions is voluntary. Incorporating simulations and role-playing can provide a valuable supplement to verbal persuasion and a viable alternative to direct experience.41 Required participation in simulations ensures that more students will engage in deliberative activities, even if their primary goal is to earn a course grade rather than to hone a valuable political skill. Structuring simulations that require tangible and truly collaborative results, such as a letter to an editor signed by a majority of the students, or a public issue resolution that most students are willing to support, should help students learn to value the role of deliberation in coordinating the activities of groups of people.

Incorporating Rules to Prevent Argumentative DebateA second source of negative reactions to deliberative educational initiatives is that people who like to argue or who have intense opinions are apt to dominate the process. When this scenario is played



out, average citizens can become frustrated because “the goal of finding real common ground is subjugated to a false consensus imposed by those with greater oratory skills.”42 In fact, the false consensus may even be imposed by those who are the most outspoken, rather than by those who have greater skills. Such a dynamic can be difficult to prevent when people, particularly many of today’s college students, lack experience collaborating in groups. When this occurs, a decreased faith in the effectiveness of group political activities would be a likely outcome. After all, why would average participants trust a process in which they felt dominated by a “well-informed, articulate faction”—or worse, by an aggressive and domineering one? 43

Few of today’s students view political discussions as the opportunity to engage in collaborative problem solving. In fact, recent focus group research with college students across the country reveals that members of the “Millennial Generation” avoid participation in traditional political activities precisely because they dislike the combative nature of contemporary political debate. They associate the process with polarizing, partisan efforts to “spin” information in a manipulative fashion.44 The political environment that they experienced while coming of age reveals why this attitude characterizes our current students more than it does members of previous generations. Our students were socialized well after the shift to primaries in the nominating process empowered ideological candidates and activists within the two major political parties.45 Youth often associate political discussions with uncivil, bitter debates over narrow ideological issues. In our students’ lifetimes, prominent politicians have often refused to cooperate with one another, and they have failed to address issues that college students—and the majority of Americans, for that matter—see as priorities.46

These historical circumstances have produced students who



know less about implementing deliberative practices than their predecessors. While students with strong, ideological positions have probably always been most apt to speak out during class discussions, their current role models in the political world have encouraged them to adopt tactics that are detrimental to reasoned collaboration. Now more than ever, deliberative activities in the classroom must be guided by clear ground rules. These rules should make it easy for everyone to contribute, discourage derogatory remarks addressed to specific individuals, and promote the provision of evidence to support positions. Moreover, the rules should emphasize the value of finding a reasonable solution over staking out polarizing political positions.

Years of deliberation within America’s voluntary associations and legislative bodies institutionalized these priorities in the form of parliamentary procedure. While strict adherence to each and every one of Robert’s Rules of Order would be too unwieldy for classroom discussions, incorporating an abbreviated format could be helpful. It could be even more effective to discuss the reasons behind parliamentary procedure and allow students to draw on them for inspiration in establishing their own ground rules. In short, some explicit training to help students learn what a successful deliberative process looks like, as well as what such a process ought to produce,would help students to enact more deliberative interactions than if left to their own devices. As a result, they will be more satisfied with their deliberative interactions and more likely to see the value of engaging in such activities in the future.

The Importance of Combining Persuasion with Practical SkillsAn account of the historical circumstances experienced by current



college students suggests that persuasive information and training in deliberative problem solving fills gaps that occurred throughout the early stages of their political socialization. It is also important to note that combining these two classroom approaches will likely work better than attempting to implement either one in isolation. Students who are asked to learn some version of parliamentary procedure without first understanding its value might become frustrated. They will see it as another classroom requirement that restricts their behavior, rather than as a useful tool for promoting collaboration. While adopting some formal rules might curb uncivil episodes, students will not be aware of this benefit unless it is pointed out to them. Their frustration may even color their attitude toward deliberative interactions, collective political activities, and their likelihood of enjoying group activities in the future. Since enjoyment of civics courses has been correlated with increased efficacy and knowledge, as well as an enhanced likelihood of discussing politics,47

instructors should be wary of classroom activities that students are apt to dislike. An even more troubling outcome is likely to occur if students are convinced of the power of collaboration, but are not then taught how to collaborate.

American cultural norms—as well as the underpinning assumption of most AG textbooks—presume that average people should be able to wield influence over their elected officials. Telling students that they can accomplish this feat only by synchronizing their activities—especially when they have had limited experiences within group settings in the first place—seems bound to cause discomfort. Young people who have never seen a voting machine often feel uneasy going to the polls to cast a ballot for the first time. So, how could they feel comfortable launching an organized political action without detailed instruction? Failing to bolster this skill set is apt to mimic the effect of fear-based persuasive appeals—they are only effective if



recipients have high levels of self-efficacy regarding the proposed solution. Subjects with low efficacy levels avoid the fear and discomfort not by taking action, but by dismissing the topic altogether.48 Students who feel that the tasks of deliberation and collective action are beyond them may well avoid thinking about political participation at all.

Final Words of AdviceGiven current trends both inside and outside of political science, we can comfortably predict that political scientists will continue their efforts to hone innovative political engagement pedagogies designed to meet student needs. Such efforts ought to incorporate an array of varied and overlapping approaches. Promoting political participation is not a simplistic problem, and, as such, demands a multifaceted solution. Deliberative classroom activities should be prominently featured among the array of solutions that we develop. Not only have deliberative collective action skills long been associated with good citizenship, but research reveals a strong correlation between civic education that promotes open-ended dialogue and long-term engagement in the political process. Moreover, a careful review of the historical circumstances facing current college students suggests that formal deliberative civic education will compensate for experiences that were missing from their natural political socialization. Those of us who believe that our efforts in the classroom can enhance the health of our democracy must be careful to follow the adage, “First do no harm.” Deliberative activities should not be incorporated in a way that exacerbates our students’ low levels of political efficacy (by failing to link deliberation to tangible outcomes) or confirms the misguided belief that political discussions inevitably revolve around partisan, ideological arguments (by failing to incorporate formal



rules). The impact of such activities, however well intentioned, may serve to further alienate students from the political process.

Notes1Peter Levine, The Future of Democracy, Developing the Next Generation of American Citizens (Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England, 2007).2Carol Geary Schneider, “Educational Missions and Civic Responsibility: Toward the Engaged Academy,” in Thomas Ehrlich, ed., Civic Responsibility and Higher Education (Phoenix, AZ: The American Council on Education and Oryx Press, 2000), 98–122.3George D. Kuh and Paul D. Umbach, “College and character: Insights from the National Survey of Student Engagement,” New Directions for Institutional Research 112 (Summer 2004): 37–54.4Anne Colby, Thomas Ehrlich, Elizabeth Beaumont, Jason Stephens, Lee S. Shulman, Educating Citizens: Preparing America’s undergraduates for lives of civic and moral responsibility (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003).5Anne E. Austin and Zelda F. Gamson, Academic Workplace: New demands, heightened tensions,ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report, no. 10 (Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1983). Howard R. Bowen and Jack H. Schuster, American Professors: A national resource imperiled (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).6George D. Kuh, John H. Schuh, Elizabeth J. Whitt, & Associates, Involving Colleges: Successful Approaches to fostering student development outside the classroom (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991), 176–177.7Ibid., 177.8Derek Bok, Our Underachieving Colleges (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006).9Levine, The Future of Democracy, 112–113.10Sydney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry Brady, Voice and Equality: Civic Volunteerismin American Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).11Cliff Zukin, Scott Keeter, Molly Andolina, Krista Jenkins, and Michael X. Delli Carpini, A New Engagement? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 100.12Ibid., 99.13Ibid.14American Political Science Association Task Force on Civic Education in the Next Century: Expanded articulation statement: A call for reactions and contributions (1998).15Zukin et al., A New Engagement, 207.16Levine, The Future of Democracy; Stephen Macedo, Yvette Alex-Assensoh, Jeffrey M. Berry, Michael Brintnall, David E. Campbell, Luis Ricardo Fraga, Archon Fung, William A. Galston, Christopher F. Karpowitz, Margaret Levi, Meira Levinson, Keena Lipsitz, Richard G. Niemi, Robert D. Putnam, Wendy M. Rahn, Rob Reich, Robert R. Rodgers, Todd Swanstrom, and Katherine Cramer Walsh, Democracy at Risk: How political choices undermine citizen participation, and what we can do about it. (Washington, DC: Brookings, 2005); Daniel M. Shea, JoanneConner Green, and Christopher E. Smith, Living Democracy (Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2007); Daniel M. Shea and John C. Green, eds., Fountain of Youth: Strategies and tactics for mobilizing America’s young voters (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007); and Martin P. Wattenberg, Is Voting for Young People? (New York: Pearson, 2008).17Peter Levine et al., “The Civic Mission of Schools,” a special report (New York: Carnegie Corp. and CIRCLE, 2003); and William A. Galston, “Civic Education and Political Participation,” Phi Delta Kappan 85, no. 1 (2003): 29–33.18Ernest L. Boyer, College: The undergraduate experience in America. (Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1987); Ehrlich, Civic Responsibility; and Anne Colby et al., eds., Educating for Democracy: Preparing undergraduates for responsible political engagement (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007).19Bok, Our Underachieving Colleges, 193.20Ibid.21Benjamin Barber, Strong Democracy: Participatory politics in a new age (Berkeley:



University of California Press, 1984); James S. Fishin, Democracy and Deliberation: New directions for democratic reform (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991); John Gastil, By Popular Demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative education (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000); John Gastil and James P. Dillard, “The Aims, Methods and Effects of Deliberative Civic Education Through the National Issues Forum,” Communication Education48, no. 1 (1999): 179–192; David Matthews, “How Concepts of Politics Control Concepts of Civic Responsibility,” in Thomas Erlich, ed., Civic Responsibility and Higher Education (Phoenix, AZ: The American Council on Education and Oryx Press, 2000), 149–162; Jill McMillan and Katy Harringer, “College Students and Deliberation,” Communication Education 51 (2002): 237–253; and David Ryfe, “Does Deliberative Democracy Work?” Annual Review of PoliticalScience, 8 (2005): 49–71.22Colby et al., Educating Citizens, 100.23Colby et al., Educating for Democracy, 191.24Ibid.25Carole L. Hahn, Becoming Political (New York: State University of New York Press, 1998); Colby et al, Educating for Democracy; Grant Reeher and J. Cammarano, eds., Education for Citizenship (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997); and Judith Torney-Purta, Rainer Lehmann, Hans Oswald, and Wolfram Schulz, , Citizenship and Education in Twenty-Eight Countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen (Amsterdam: InternationalAssociation for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 2001).26David E. Campbell, “Voice in the Classroom: How an open classroom climate fosters political engagement among adolescents,” Political Behavior 30, no. 4 (2008): 437–454.27Ryfe, “Does Deliberative Democracy Work.”28Mark E.Warren, Democracy and Associations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001). 4329Ryfe, “Does Deliberative Democracy Work.”30Ibid.31Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000); Theda Skocpol, Diminished Democracy: From membership to management in American civic life (Norman, OK: The University of Oklahoma Press, 2003); and Theda Skocpol and Morris P. Fiorina, eds., Civic Engagement in American Democracy (New York: Sage, 1999).32Everett Carll Ladd, The Ladd Report (New York: The Free Press, 1999).33Neil Howe and W. Strauss, Millennials Rising: The next great generation (New York: Vintage, 2000).34David Brooks, “The Organization Kid,” The Atlantic Monthly (April 2004).35McMillan and Harringer, “College Students and Deliberation,” 244.36John Brehm and Wendy Rahn, “Individual-level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital,” American Journal of Political Science 41 no. 3 (1997): 999–1023.37Harry C. Boyte, “Civic Education and the New American Patriotism Post–9/11,” Cambridge Journal of Education 33 (2003): 85–100.38Judith Torney-Purta et al., Citizenship and Education in Twenty-Eight Countries; Richard G. Niemi and Jane Junn, Civic Education: What makes students learn (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998); James A. Youniss, Jeffrey A. McLellen, and Miranda Yates, “What We Know about Engendering Civic Identity,” American Behavioral Scientist 40, no. 5 (1977): 620–631.39Alfred Bandura, Social Learning Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1977); and Alfred Bandura, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986).40Bandura, Social Learning and Bandura, Social Foundations.41Ibid.42McMillan and Harringer, “College Students and Deliberation,” 245.43Ibid., 243.44Abby Kiesa et al., Millennials Talk Politics: A study of college student political engagement. (College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement and the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, 2007).45J. Cherie Strachan, “Building Youth Party Identification and Revitalizing Democracy,” in Daniel M. Shea and John C. Green, Fountain of Youth: Strategies and tactics for mobilizing America’s young voters (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 79–92.



46Skocpol, Diminished Democracy.47James G. Gimpel, Celeste Lay, and Jason E. Schuknecth, Cultivating Democracy: Civic environments and political socialization in America (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2003).48Franklin J. Boster and Paul A. Mongeau, “Fear-Arousing Persuasive Messages” in Robert N. Bostrom, ed., Communication Yearbook 8 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1984), 330– 375; and Kim Witte, “Fear as Motivator, Fear as Inhibitor: Using the extended parallel process model to explain fear appeal successes and failures” in Peter A. Andersen and Laura K. Guerrero, eds., The Handbook of Communication and Emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1998), 423–450

Essay 2download full file at http://testbankinstant.com


FROM CHALKBOARD TO CHAT ROOM: MAKING THE TRANSITION TO ONLINE INSTRUCTION TO AMERICAN GOVERNMENTBradley DykeDes Moines Area Community CollegeThe demand for online instruction has increased dramatically in recent years as the Internet has become more accessible to all academic disciplines and to all institutions of higher learning. Despite the outcry from traditional instructors that courses dependent on lecture and classroom dialogue are not well-suited for an online format, outside pressures compel us to make the transition. Overbaugh and Shin stated the problem succinctly: “The primary goal of post-secondary education is to provide effective instruction, but the now widespread implementation of distributed education and the resultant competition for enrollment has increased the focus on student satisfaction . . .”1We can interpret “student satisfaction” as the ability to provide a full range of college courses that students can access off campus and manage at their own pace. Of course, the “resultant competition” refers to the market-driven preferences of



administrators who have bought into the financial advantages of ready access, higher enrollments, and lower infrastructure costs.

However accurate or justifiable these considerations may be, particularly from the student’s standpoint, online instruction has prevailed and will not recede. It is now the business of the political science faculty to make the transition to online instruction, quickly, without sacrificing clarity and quality—a formidable combination of demands. While some of our colleagues have been teaching from Web-based platforms since the inception of online education, current market demands have compelled many more of us to join their ranks. This chapter is devoted to those who are making the transition from the traditional lecture hall to online instruction, as well as to those who may have online teaching experience but remain hampered by organizational and pedagogical difficulties. Such difficulties persist after nearly a decade of online education, partly as a result of the feverish pace of the movement. Many colleges and universities now realize that they have outrun their capabilities, trying to meet the demand for online education while not being sufficiently conscious of the usability—or the quality—of the product they are offering. In this chapter, we will concentrate on some organizational and pedagogical factors that must be addressed for an online American Government (AG) instructor to effectively engage modern students, who, while technologically savvy, might also be distracted. No new theoretical ground will be broken, nor will we address the specifics of online course development and pedagogy. Such matters require extensive preparation and practice by the individual instructor, which is well beyond the scope of this overview. Rather, we will consider some ways in which new online AG instructors can create a support structure that will enable them to acquire the technological and pedagogical skills necessary to do their jobs well.

While any political science course faces a set of challenges in



moving from traditional to online format, the task for AG instructors poses particular problems. The increased student demand for online courses is a major consideration. Offering several online sections of American Government increases the need for instructors who are not only competent in their subject matter, but who are technologically adept at online instruction. AG courses also purport to deal with governmental structures and procedures as well as political factors—public opinion formation, the role of the mass media, political philosophy and ideology, and policymaking. The art of balancing these topics is even more challenging when the learning platform does not easily facilitate spontaneous, interactive dialogue.

Another critical issue is student literacy. Despite the recent contention of Margaret Spellings, former U.S. Secretary of Education, that the No Child Left Behind legislation “is strong as mustard gas,”2

this controversial legislation has not produced widespread improvements in the ability of students to read—much less to develop critical-thinking skills. Part of the difficulty is the lack of awareness among government agencies that must establish the benchmarks for higher education. Robert Zemsky, chairman of the Learning Alliance for Higher Education, noted bleakly, “In my work as a member of the Department of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, or the Spellings Commission, we only spent all of about 45 minutes talking about technology.”3 While the Obama administration has pledged to foster major improvements in public education, it is too soon to judge whether it will demonstrate the same interest in the use of online communication in educational practice as it does in political outreach. Another recent article on evaluating online resources concludes: “Within the United States, there is a growing professional and public demand for technologically proficient students who possess strong information literacy skills. Students need not only to read and understand the messages contained in Web-based



resources but also to be able to develop the ‘habits of mind’ required to understand the motivations of the sponsoring organizations that provide the information. By helping students assess the credibility of online resources, teachers help them develop the information literacy skills that they will need to assess material critically so that they can participate in our democracy.”4 Both of these observations point to the necessity for institutional support and instructor training in online pedagogy as the substructure of modern online instruction.

We must also confront the fact that modern students simply learn differently than those of earlier generations. These considerations go beyond literacy; they involve a different approach to acquisition of knowledge. Variously described as “Gen-Y” or “Millennials,” learners under 30 years of age are described thus: “Millennials, who were born between roughly 1980 and 1994, have grown up with more choices and more selectivity in the products and services they use . . . Whether they are using Facebook, MySpace, iPods, instant messaging, or text messaging, Millennials are plugged in. Some other traits of Millennials: They rarely read newspapers—or, for that matter, books. They are impatient and goal oriented. They hate busywork, learn by doing, and are used to instant feedback. They want it now.”5 We could add that these students have shorter attention spans, prefer to be simultaneously engaged in multiple tasks, and tend to be nocturnal. A more serious concern is the cavalier attitude many of these students have about ownership of intellectual property, plagiarism, and academic integrity. (This problem deserves, and has received, much attention.) These issues aggravate the concurrent demands of online instruction that include, but are not limited to, managing the volume of participant interactions and training new online students. Make no mistake: Online instruction is very different from classroom instruction. Even the most experienced and accomplished traditional instructor will find the transition to the



online format time-consuming and frustrating, as he or she learns to convey their considerable knowledge in a pedagogical manner acceptable to their online students.

In order to confront the considerations posed by the transition from classroom to online instruction, we can organize these considerations into a triangular diagram. Each consideration has an associative set of preparations necessary to facilitate useful instruction, described in the text below. Within this framework lies the online AG course.

ReadinessRecall that each of our considerations has both institutional and instructional dimensions, imparting roles for university administrators, the marketing department, information technology department, curriculum committees, and instructional designers, as well as for the instructors themselves. Christina DeSimone summarized the connection between these groups as she identified the multivariate role of the distance education (DE) instructor: “Rather than being the typical source of information, the instructor assumes the role of facilitator, monitor, and peer collaborator, engaged in creating discourse with students. . . . DE teachers must be willing and able to develop new methodologies of teaching that redistribute power, role and responsibility within the learning community. Therefore, to ensure the success of learning activities . . . DE faculty must not only develop the necessary competencies to do their work but must develop a clear understanding of their redefined roles and responsibilities.”6 Perhaps the most widely discussed aspect of online education is online course preparation and instructional technique. A number of useful articles and manuals are available to develop or enhance preparation and pedagogy. Although the specific



strategies and techniques are as varied as the contributors, they all depend upon the basic components of readiness, which includes development of a reliable technological framework, online course design, and instructor orientation.7 Instructor orientation must include both training in how to use the online platform and pedagogical assistance for online instruction. Traditional lecturers will quickly find that merely transposing their materials to Word documents is insufficient. They must develop proficiency in graphics, hyperlinks, and video enhancements, to mention a few, and be able to produce this information in an interesting and engaging format that will entice students.

In all of these, institutional readiness must precede instructor readiness. As new courses are added to the online curriculum, administrators should anticipate expanding the infrastructure, and the subsequent costs. Stakeholders should view this process as an investment in the growth of the university, not merely a trendy expenditure. As with any worthy investment, the price tag can be significant. Administrators need to be aware that growth in enrollment can only be achieved through growth in facilities, services, and well-trained faculty. Those who presume that full-scale online instruction can be easily manufactured from existing resources will find themselves disappointed with the product, and liable to spend more on recovery and restructuring than they would have had they begun wisely.

For online American Government, institutional readiness must include a technological network that will support any software, technical enhancements that are discipline-related (maps, charts, online databases), and technical support for both instructors and students. An oft-heard complaint from instructors and students alike concerns technological failure (“glitches” are both frequent and inevitable), and the lack of timely, knowledgeable technical support.



Online students do not observe ordinary business hours: They are apt to need information or support beyond the traditional workday. A 24/7 help desk, or reliable connections to online support from the service and/or software provider (often the publishers of the course texts) should be built into the institution’s online framework, even if that requires outsourcing these capabilities to a private company.

While structural soundness is necessary, the continued growth of online instruction is ultimately dependent on the quality of the instructional product. Preparing experienced AG faculty members to adapt to the online format is preferable, as it brings credibility and continuity to the program. Seasoned faculty members who can be encouraged to try online instruction bring their vast academic knowledge to the new platform. But they may need considerable assistance in learning the technology. Princeton Outreach Coordinator Howard Strauss crisply observed, “Although it is challenging to get faculty members to use technology, it is essential. . . . Many students ignore anything that is not online. If they can’t find information in a few clicks of the mouse, they will do without it. Faculty members need to get their course materials online, be able to at least dabble in multimedia, and create basic Web pages.”8 Online instructors should be assisted from the outset by an online course designer (preferably one familiar with AG curricula) who can assist in course setup and—especially—pedagogical enhancement. Experience shows that even the best classroom instructors experience frustration in trying to transfer their teaching product to an electronic format, in which virtually everything must be converted for remote, delayed accessibility. A cadre of staff and faculty—an online course design team—should be convened for each discipline, so that both technical personnel and content experts can readily share knowledge and develop course materials and methods that are intellectually sound, and of appropriate rigor, as well as engaging and user-friendly.



An often overlooked component of readiness is student preparation. Most colleges and universities have the necessary technological equipment, but not all make the effort to provide students with the technical training necessary to be successful in taking online courses. Experience shows that, while most students are attracted to online learning, not all are capable of using it. Successful online performance requires a tutorial in the school’s online format, as well as orientation for students in any specialized computer programs or software used by the instructors (if scientific calculations, statistical analysis, gaming technology, etc., are used in the course). As always, accommodations for students with special needs must be built into the system, and the instructor must calculate for the extra time and effort necessary to address these needs. Student readiness also requires facilities for remediation. Sadly, more and more students are entering college without the necessary literacy tools to achieve success. Even those universities that require entrance exams do not always filter out students who have deficiencies in reading, writing, and technological familiarity. If post-secondary institutions are to meet their enrollment targets, they must be prepared to offer remedial courses that permit students to enter college and build their learning skills while doing their coursework. For institutions such as community colleges, which have few if any entrance requirements, remedial courses are essential and growing in number. Administration should consider offering some cumulative course credit as an enticement to students taking remedial classes. Otherwise, students on tight budgets or tight timelines may avoid enrolling in them, and thus hamper their potential academic success.

RelevanceConsiderable discussion has ensued over how to make AG courses



relevant to both modern students and growth-oriented administrators. To a large degree, this discussion is a reflection of changes in our culture. As the United States experiences hegemonic decline, citizens are increasingly challenged to compete in a global economy, yet often with fewer financial and educational resources. The operating assumption of the education community is that technical training for so-called “practical” disciplines is preferable to a well-rounded curriculum. The parameters dictated by the No Child Left Behind legislation are indicative of this trend, and drive the K–12 curriculum in the direction of math and science at the expense of social studies. Consequently, students entering college-level AG courses often have little or no exposure to civics. A recent article on a study by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute asserts, “American colleges and universities are failing to instill ‘civic literacy’ in their students.”9 The article further states: “According to the report . . . scores for college seniors on average was only 1.5 percent higher than those for freshmen. At some of the institutions surveyed—including such prestigious universities as Brown, Georgetown, and Yale—seniors actually scored lower than freshmen. The overall average score for seniors was 53.2 percent, the equivalent of a failing grade.”10

While college-level AG instructors are not responsible for this failing, they can incorporate online course materials that take advantage of the inclination of modern students to seek information in electronic format. Students are more inclined to respond to learning content that is conveyed in a format they know and enjoy. A properly constructed online AG course will feature electronic links to useful Web sites, incorporate audio and video segments, and use eye-catching graphics that focus on key points and main ideas. Curriculum can be variously paced to accommodate the needs of diverse learners. A host of new technology tools are readily available (many are open-source on the Internet) that can be easily loaded into online courses,



and which provide the necessary combination of visual, aural, and critical- thinking components. Most major publishing houses provide low-cost integrated packages to accompany standardized texts (such as Pearson’s MyPoliSciLab.com).

A more recent innovation is to link online course materials to students’ personal communication devices. Social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter are now being used to bring course content directly to a student’s handset. Munoz and Towner point out the multiple and user-friendly functions of Facebook that make it the preference of many college students, and offer an excellent delivery platform for course content.11 Twitter is an instantaneous phone messaging service that allows for spontaneous communication among multiple parties. Many officeholders are now using it to communicate with their constituents. The combination of real-time information and ease has appeal for both professors and tech-savvy students. Other technologies, such as Camtasia and Skype, offer the possibility of video lectures and interactive videoconferencing. These instruments can bring a “face” back into the online classroom. Live images and interactive dialogue are an essential part of the traditional classroom, and due to technological limitations, were necessarily left out of early online instruction. Now we have the capability of restoring “live” interaction, which improves spontaneous communication, and likely will improve student attention and retentiveness. We all recall those moments when we were engaged by an absorbing lecture or a dynamic class discussion. The disembodied chat rooms and discussion functions could never quite capture the energy of a live event. While still short of the real thing, real-time videoconferencing may be a positive step toward regenerating the human touch in the cyber world. If we are to bring our own personal touch, our rhetorical skills, and our charisma to online students, they must see and hear—feel—our presence.



This is critical to conveying our own genuine care and enthusiasm for our subject. Jaded as they can be, students need to connect and warm up to our own faith in the political process. Today’s students are results-oriented; they want to believe that what they are learning will actually apply to their future plans—especially their economic future. All AG classes should emphasize policymaking, the importance of informed popular participation, and raising awareness of government programs and services that enhance the lives of all citizens. Focusing on the citizen’s role (the feedback model), and encouraging the active involvement of students beyond the cyber classroom, are important steps toward addressing students’ concerns about relevancy. A recent EDUCAUSE article offers a 10-point definition of authentic activities, among which were to comprise complex tasks to be investigated by students over a sustained period of time; to provide the opportunity to collaborate; to provide the opportunity to reflect; to integrate seamlessly with assessment; and to allow competing solutions and a diversity of outcomes.12

These ideas should be considered part of a useful checklist for online course construction. Encouraging student dialogue and proposed solutions that are factually sound and empirically valid, yet permit a range of responses, will increase enthusiasm for participation. Moving the students away from their computer screens and into the community will add a real-life dimension to the class, promote networking—essential to future employment opportunities—and enhance class discussion. We already encourage service-learning and volunteerism in our traditional classrooms. We can facilitate it just as easily in the online world; it might even be more feasiblefor our online students, who spend much more of their time in the community than on campus. Perhaps these live, interactive technologies can serve everyone better in this capacity.



ResponsivenessOnline instructors note a dearth of emotional connection with their students, most of whom they have never met. The emotional bond between instructors and students is more difficult to achieve in the online format, absent face-toface contact. We must confront a fallacy that has been present from the outset of online teaching: Online learners are more mature, motivated, and self-disciplined than traditional students, hence, they are prepared for the additional rigors of online instruction. While this may be true of a certain segment of the online student population, many students do not fulfill this stereotype. Many choose online instruction because they have overcommitted schedules and complex lifestyles. Such students mistakenly perceive that online learning will be easier and require less time. Overzealous college marketing departments contribute to this fallacy. It also is likely that online instructors will find themselves compelled to pay greater attention to individual students whose personal views, habits, situations, and attitudes require the instructor’s intervention in ways that are not usually demanded in a traditional lecture environment. Like it or not, the instructor is the main connection between student and university, and is often expected, at least by some students, to take on the duties of registrar, academic adviser, counselor, librarian, and bookstore clerk. Care must be taken in the syllabus to route students to these other services, perhaps by hyperlink, so that class time can be devoted instead to the instructor’s academic responsibilities. The statement below is from my own American Government online syllabus, and has proven useful in conjunction withhyperlinks to other departments.



Being a Successful WebCT StudentTaking courses online is a special challenge for both students and the instructor. Contrary to popular belief, online courses are actually more labor-intensive and time-consuming than lecture courses. The first key to being a successful online student is self-motivation—you must:

_Be an effective time manager _Be self-disciplined _Be adept at using the technology necessary for our

course _Read the syllabus thoroughly _Regularly consult the course calendar _Check the university Web site for other services

Social factors—respect, deference, and courtesy—must also be addressed in online dialogue among all interactive parties. Modern students are exposed to a model of public discourse that is often confrontational, condescending, emotionally charged—the exact opposite of what is necessary for constructive classroom dialogue. Confrontation is already more likely to take place in an AG classroom, where controversial topics and multiple opinions are standard features of discussion. While fractious students are nothing new, finding ways of quelling discontent and promoting civility is more challenging in an online discussion. Prospective online AG instructors must establish firm ground rules for interactive dialogue, and be willing to summarily enforce them. Here again, an effective course structure and sharing disciplinary responsibilities with administration is key to successful online classroom management. While it is desirable to establish a set period of online time for real-time class



dialogue, it is not always feasible. Even if real-time dialogue ensues, face time is more problematic. Technology already exists to facilitate live conferencing, but it is expensive— and impractical, if all the students cannot attend the conference sessions. The instructor’s overall teaching schedule and institutional responsibilities can also preclude live chat. In lieu of real-time interaction, it is imperative that instructors log on regularly, in accordance with a schedule listed in the syllabus, to send and receive e-mail from students. The online student’s ability and willingness to learn is directly impacted by steady, constructive dialogue with their instructor. Such dialogue provides needed incentive, particularly when it comes to encouraging students to budget their time wisely. Susceptibility to falling behind due to the logistics of completing the distance class, or even a little procrastination, could start the distance learner on a slippery slope to giving up. Providing more flexibility for completion of the course may help increase the success of distance students.13 Students will only find value in a class where they can compete and complete. Demonstrating a degree of sensitivity, of compassion—but without sacrificing academic rigor or seriousness of purpose—is crucial to keeping students involved and performing at their highest capable level. Academic rigor cannot be emphasized enough. There is a disturbing tendency—no doubt in response to growth imperatives—to load the college’s catalogue with as many online courses as possible, without sufficient regard for the quality of the courses. This condition is aggravated by an additional tendency to hire adjunct instructors to teach them. While every college and university in the nation relies heavily on its adjunct faculty, care must be taken that adjuncts be required to meet the same standards and curricular obligations as tenured full-time faculty. Ruth, Sammons, and Poulin reflected on the perils of overuse of overworked adjuncts: “Extensive use of part-time faculty has a negative effect on an important measure of quality:



graduation rate. . . . Professor Dan Jacoby’s recent analysis using summary data from all U.S. public community colleges shows a highly significant negative relationship between net graduation rates and part-time faculty ratios.”14 While administrators may contest the point, it is the tenured faculty who carry the obligation and the tradition for academic excellence. Frequent and regular oversight of online courses should be built into the institution’s framework, which includes review of course content by experienced faculty members who have demonstrated their competence in both the academic discipline and in online pedagogy. Faculty members must discourage administrative trade-offs between online course “access” (translated, “revenue-generation”) and academic integrity.

A key factor—and a precarious one—is fair assessment. Fairness imparts an obligation that instructors provide assessments that are reasonably challenging, reflective of available course content, and permit adequate preparation and completion time. Imparting fairness to the students requires that the instructor provide specific instructions and guidelines, including academic and disciplinary consequences for tardiness and infractions. This is a protective and judicial mechanism. We note in modern students a proclivity for bargaining and litigation—and, in some cases, academic misconduct. Having specific, publicized directives for student performance on writing and testing assessments is critical to the maintenance of an online AG course. Sharing these directives with the appropriate administrative and proctoring staff is likewise critical. Online instruction is here to stay; American Government remains an essential course in the political science department. Melding these two constants is a work in progress. The good news is that, like all endeavors, experience with online instruction eventually will reduce the amount of time necessary for preparation and maintenance.



Making the Transition, A SummaryHere are some suggestions for making an effective transition from traditional classroom instruction to online instruction:

Become technologically proficient in the online teaching platform you will be using. Work with a competent instructional designer to create an online course that is accessible and comprehensible to a wide variety of skill levels.

Encourage, if not require, prospective online students to take a tutorial in online learning. A surprising number of Gen-Y learners (not to mention returning students) are not proficient with computers, the Internet, or Web-based courses. Ideally, a student should have to demonstrate

proficiency before he/she can enroll in an online course. Use a wide variety of sources, especially those that can be

accessed via the Internet (hyperlinks, government Web sites, etc.). Coordinate with your learning resources and information technology departments to improve accessibility. Review and update your links periodically.

Maintain academic standards across the curriculum. Try as much as possible to match the academic rigor of online courses with traditional courses.

Budget your time effectively. Although preparation and

maintenance of online courses will always take more time than traditional courses (at a roughly 2-to-1 ratio), it will get easier with experience. Work regularly with support staff and administration to maintain an effective, streamlined framework for online instruction. Consider



developing content-area design teams. Make sure that growth does not exceed capacity. Never sacrifice quality for quantity.

Notes1Richard C. Overbaugh and Shin Yi Lin, “Student Characteristics, Sense of Community, and Cognitive Achievement in Web-based and Lab-based Learning Environments,” Journal of Research on Technology in Education 39 (2006): 205.2Quoted in The Christian Science Monitor online edition, “Margaret Spellings: ‘No Child Left Behind’ Faces Political Head Winds,” November 2, 2007, http://csmonitor.com/2007/1102/ p25s01-usmb.html.3The Chronicle of Higher Education online edition, “How the New Generation of Well-Wired Multitaskers Is Changing Campus Culture,” January 5, 2007, http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/ i18/18b01001.html.4Chris Street, “Tech Talk for Social Studies Teachers: Evaluating Online Resources: The Importance of Critical Reading Skills in Online Environments,” The Social Studies 96 no. 6 (November–December 2005): 273.5The Chronicle of Higher Education online edition, “How the New Generation of Well-Wired Multitaskers.6Christina De Simone, “Preparing Our Teachers for Distance Education,” College Teaching 54, no. 1 (Winter 2006): 183.7See, for example, San Diego State University’s compilation of online instructional strategies and resources, http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~dl/fac_strategies.html.8Howard Strauss, “Why Many Faculty Members Aren’t Excited About Technology,” Chronicle of Higher Education online edition, June 24, 2005, http://chronicle.com/weekly.v51/i42/ 42b03001.html.9John Gravois, “Colleges Fail to Teach American History and ‘Civic Literacy,’ Report Says,” Chronicle of Higher Education online edition, October 6, 2006, http://chronicle.com/article/ Colleges-Fail-to-Teach/5178/.10Ibid.11See Caroline Lego Munoz and Terri L. Towner, “Opening Facebook: How to Use Facebook in the College Classroom,” http://www46.homepage.villanova.edu/john.immerwahr/TP101/ Facebook.pdf.12Carie Windham, “Why Today’s Students Value Authentic Learning,” Diana G. Oblinger, ed., Educause Learning Initiative, ELI Paper 9: 2007 (September 2007): 3.13Teddi S. Deka and Patrick McMurry, “Student Success in Face-to-Face and Distance Teleclass Environments: A matter of contact?” International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 7, no. 1 (June 2006), 11.14Stephen R. Ruth, Martha Sammons, and Lindsey Poulin, “E-Learning at a Crossroads: What Price Quality?” EDUCAUSE Quarterly 30, no. 2 (2007): 34.


http://www46.homepage.villanova.edu/john.immerwahr/TP101/

http://chronicle.com/weekly.v51/i42/

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/

http://csmonitor.com/2007/1102/


Essay 2

USING TECHNOLOGY TO ENGAGE IN LARGE CLASSROOM SETTINGSSherri L. Mora and Tom MilesTexas State UniversityInspiring student political activism is necessary on small and large campuses, but nowhere is the challenge greater than in the large lecture setting. As sociologist Paul Baker points out, “Frustration with large classes seems to have been endemic to rapid university growth throughout much of the twentieth century.” Many universities faced with increased admissions during the 1960s and 1970s created larger lecture sections to accommodate this growth. As a result, enrollments in these so-called theater sections commonly swelled to between 100 and 300 students, and up to 600 students in larger universities. It is not uncommon to find many core curriculum classes, including courses in American Government, offered in this venue. Little wonder, then, that these large lecture sections generate many complaints.



Instructors lament that students are apathetic, exhibit limited comprehension of lecture topics, engage in disruptive behavior, and fail to attend regularly. Students in large sections, often in their first year of college, find themselves adrift in a sea of anonymous faces with little opportunity to interact with their professors or fellow students. While some students are philosophic about large classrooms and view them as just another part of the college experience, many express frustration with theater sections. A survey conducted at the University of North Texas reveals that students are strongly divided over the merits of large classes; essentially they either love them or loathe them, with very few expressing ambivalence. Students expressing positive attitudes feel more independent, self-reliant, and pleased to take charge of their own success in the course. They also feel less pressure to participate than in smaller classes.1 Students who express negative opinions bemoan the feeling of being cramped or uncomfortable. Others express difficulty in paying attention in class and find this problem exacerbated by many distractions, such as people talking or engaging in other non-learning activities. Some students believe that the greatest problem in large lectures is a sense of utter anonymity; they feel disconnected from the class and perceive that they have no access to either the instructor or the teaching assistant. Learning experts tell us that this last complaint is perhaps the single greatest problem in large classes, contributing most directly to decreased learning outcomes. This sense of anonymity and disconnectedness produces students who view “passivity as the least costly approach to success . . .” in large classes.2 The students simply do not engage with the material and do not use higher-level cognitive skills. They believe they are merely part of a “cafeteria style” education that relies on memorization of rote facts that they will be called upon to regurgitate at exam time. Further, students have no opportunity for constructive feedback. Lack of participation and lack



of access to the instructor can cause deep frustration and anxiety for students who need clarification or help with a complicated concept. Student and instructor alike must often wait until the first exam to find that a significant idea was misunderstood, resulting in a poor grade and anxiety for the student.

The increasing use of theater forums represents a trend in higher education that is not likely to reverse. Interactive technology and collaborative lecture techniques show promise in addressing many of the problems associated with large lecture sections. Effective use of this technology involves students in their learning, increases their comprehension of lecture material, and provides instructors with feedback to evaluate pedagogy.

Creating an Active ClassroomQuite simply, the sheer logistics of teaching large classes compels us to employ practices that we would not use in smaller classes. It has become axiomatic that best teaching practices include asking questions and creating an active atmosphere in which students are encouraged to participate.3 In large sections, however, we tend to abandon this approach because a barrage of student questions or too much unstructured discussion can get out of control and easily expend an entire class period. We feel obligated to “get through the material” at the expense of student participation. This method promotes a situation in which students seldom, if ever, speak to the instructor, ask questions, or provide feedback. Such a passive learning environment does little to alleviate the challenges of teaching large classes. If we are to remediate these problems, we must rethink our approach to teaching these theater-sized sections. There is a significant difference between passive learning, in which students simply listen to lectures, and active “strategic” learning where



students are encouraged to participate. Memory is “affected by how deeply we process new knowledge.”4 If students are not encouraged to participate and elaborate on concepts, then they are merely engaged in rote memorization. Further, students in passive environments often find the classes uninteresting or confusing. If classes are dull, students are prone to distraction. If students find classes confusing, levels of comprehension fall while frustrations rise. To combat this tendency, instructors must challenge themselves to find new ways to increase student participation. Research has shown that feedback is especially important to learning.5 Student feedback concerning the pace of class and the difficulty of material presented is difficult to obtain in large classes. Students may be reluctant to approach the instructor or teaching assistant because it often requires waiting in line after class or scheduling time outside of class to visit with the teaching team. Without student feedback, it is impossible for instructors to assess learning outcomes—until tests are already graded, and it is too late. In this type of environment, formal assessment, rather than conceptual understanding, comes to dominate the instructional methodology.6

Incorporating a problem-solving style of instruction can help reverse the trend of formal assessment. As Gagne points out, learning factual data through rote memorization may be confusing because no deeper-ordered faculties are being accessed.7 Questions and interactive exercises cause learners to engage cognitive processes and reorganize information into schemas. Schaeffer, et al. used online problem sets with large classes to demonstrate the efficacy of this approach.8 Students were not immediately given the answers to the problems, but were instead given the resources to find the answers for themselves. As a result of this course redesign, students demonstrated significant motivational and learning benefits.9 Use of informal assessment has been shown to promote an active and



collaborative learning environment, greater student involvement, and increased feedback. Asking questions facilitates deeper learning because it prompts students to think about what they have just learned.10 When informal assessment is combined with a collaborative inquiry-based approach, it reverses the “trend of passive learning” and provides greater conceptual gains.11 The study conducted by Ebert-May, et al. utilized small, informal, collaborative groups in class to answer questions and work out conceptual problems. A student from the group then presented an answer, or argument, to demonstrate “conceptual understanding.” Learning was shifted back on the students, who felt more responsible for their progress. The study provides ample qualitative evidence to support gains in substantive knowledge, and it notes positive evaluations from students.12

A variant of this method has been employed successfully in AG classes at Texas State University. During a lecture, or prior to the next lecture, multiple-choice questions are posed concerning the material covered. Instead of announcing the correct answer, students are encouraged to collaborate and explain why each possible answer is correct or incorrect. The instructor promotes an atmosphere of friendly exchange in which incorrect answers are also considered, as a means to clearer understanding. The results have been encouraging, with more students participating throughout the semester. Student approval of the problem-set method has been high and exam grades have steadily increased. In large sections, problem sets and structured discussion can re-engage students and create active learning environments. Technology available in the 21st century teaching theater has the potential to facilitate this process if it is used in an active and collaborative way.



Podcasting and Online Content: Prospects and ProblemsTechnology has long been a fixture in the academic world, but many universities have begun to use technology to take learning outside of the traditional lecture setting. Use of iPods for Web-based lectures, projects, and discussion groups has become widespread, as universities seek new ways of dealing with the challenges inherent in teaching large sections. Donald French classifies today’s students as “social, highly competent multitaskers, who expect immediate results and feedback and seek stimulation and interaction.”13 As such, students tend to gravitate toward technology that allows them to take their classes with them, accessing lectures and reviewing materials any time, night or day. While iPods are traditionally associated with music, they offer the additional benefit of being able to download video content and multimedia, transforming them into “libraries” for supplemental instruction.14 Increased access to these resources and audio or video review of classroom lectures may positively affect student comprehension and subsequently improve performance on exams and papers.

Duke University has been a pioneer on the digital frontier with its use of iPods to supplement traditional classroom instruction. In the 2004–2005 academic year, Duke began distributing Apple iPods with voice recorders to more than 1,200 students enrolled in 15 fall courses and 33 spring courses. The devices were employed in a variety of different disciplines, including humanities, social sciences, foreign languages, music, and engineering.15 The iPods were used as a classroom recording tool, as a study support tool to deliver secondary materials in the form of audio and multimedia files, and as a content delivery tool to disseminate lectures via podcasts. Students in these courses were able to download the material from their computers and



have it available to review at any time. In June 2005, Duke released a study detailing the successes and drawbacks its instructors encountered in using iPods. Instructors and students reported

reduced dependence on physical materials and ease in downloading multimedia resources. Students also reported greater “engagement and interest” in class and touted their ability to record small-group discussions and to selfrecord oral assignments and reminders.16

Other studies have documented similar reviews among students and instructors using new technology. Abram culled comments from instructors and found favorable reports from teachers of foreign language and music, who hailed the devices’ ability to provide repetitive review of songs and language recordings.17 There are, however, limitations in the quality of audio recordings available to students. The Duke study found iPods to be most useful in recording short-range discussions. Although participants were able to effectively record in the small-group format, the devices proved to be somewhat ineffective for recording classroom lectures due to their small recording radii.

Other challenges to implementing new technology included increased staff time and resources, difficulty integrating multiple data storage and data sharing systems, and complications in obtaining bulk licenses for commercial audio content. Of these barriers, implementation cost is perhaps the greatest. An initial investment in hardware and software is often just the tip of the iceberg. Additional training of faculty and staff is required before the technology can be effectively utilized, and students must incur the cost of purchasing equipment for class. Brill and Galloway report initial outlays of $100,000 per classroom, to as much as $300,000 per classroom, just to install the hardware and software.18 With this level of investment, administrators will want to be assured that the cost will reap tangible benefits in terms of increased student engagement and enhanced



learning outcomes.

Hybrid ModelsThe University of North Texas (UNT) began a quality enhancement program in 2005 that applied innovative methods to improve large-section instruction. It redesigned several survey classes—art history, general chemistry, computer applications, world literature, and a U.S. history course—all of which were taught in a large lecture format. In redesigning these courses, professors utilized new methods of teaching that included collaborative problem solving, recorded lectures, and online content. Out-of-class assignments included problem sets, evaluation of short papers, presentations, and small discussion groups. These so-called blended classes are meant to stimulate higher-order problem-solving processes and to increase student involvement in their learning rather than treating them as passive recipients of information.

UNT is conducting a five-year study to assess the effectiveness of these redesigned courses by comparing a cohort of students in the two types of classes, with students in the unchanged courses acting as a control group. While the study is ongoing, some preliminary results seem promising. Although there was a small decline in completion rate in the redesigned classes, 71 percent of the students were “successful” and 61 percent were “highly successful,” compared with 70.3 percent “successful” and 43 percent “highly successful” in the unchanged courses.19 These measures of success are based upon pre-and post-tests of course-specific learning objectives; success is defined as net change between pre-and post-test measures. In the redesigned courses, these results were achieved at a slightly lower cost, evaluated in terms of success per credit hour. Similarly, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee uses a hybrid course format in



many of its larger classes. It has noted a greater degree of student motivation and insists that its students are learning more through student-centered activities and increased participation in online discussion groups. The instructors point out, however, the many increased challenges of classroom management when hybrid courses are created. Instructors must rethink classroom organization, assignments, assessment, and even course content. Their report concludes: “Instructors must be prepared to help students understand their active role in the hybrid, assist students in keeping their work on time and on track, and be prepared to offer strategies for trouble-shooting new course technologies.”20

Implementing these new technologies often requires significant training of faculty and staff as well as the inclusion of nontraditional actors such as Web designers and information technology personnel. Institutional support in the form of training seminars and workshops is critical. Moreover, faculty can often be resistant to, fearful of, or even hostile toward new technologies and new teaching methods.21 The traditional lecture format is deeply ingrained in the educational system, and integrating new pedagogical approaches involves challenging the notion among educators that “everyone should learn the way I learn.”22 For many, this can be a challenging transition. Most universities now offer at least some of their classes online or in a non-lecture format, and there are obvious advantages to this method of instruction. In addition, hybrid models for large section instruction that include out-of-class or online activities have been successful with many students. However, some students prefer the traditional classroom, as it is an integral part of the college experience.23We do not advocate abandoning the traditional classroom, but rather propose an alternative method of using technology to bring the students back into the classroom and engage them in a way that challenges them, promotes active learning, and makes the large class,



in some sense, seem a bit smaller.

ClickersThe problems associated with teaching large sections are not going away; there will always be distractions, students wandering in late, and feelings of detachment, inattention, and apathy. We can address these problems and reengage students in the learning process through easy-to-use technologies. Electronic audience response systems, or “clickers,” offer some solutions and perhaps even some fun. These little devices are easy to operate, reasonably priced, require minimal preparation prior to use, and appeal to a generation of video-gaming text messengers. Clickers are small handheld devices, about the size of a television remote, which students purchase and bring to class. They usually cost somewhere between $10 and $25. Some publishers have begun packaging clickers with their textbooks so that students may buy them as a bundle and save money. The cost to the institution is minimal. The entire setup for instructors and teaching assistants is usually less than $300, significantly less than the six-figure investment needed to implement the large-scale technologies. The startup kit is not intimidating and unobtrusive; it will typically come with a small control base, a removable memory storage device, USB cable, and two to three instructor remotes similar to the student remotes. Setup is easy, and most clicker manufacturers provide a brief online tutorial to familiarize new users in a matter of minutes. For instructors using presentation technology like PowerPoint, the clicker system is designed to “piggy-back” the software program and to integrate seamlessly with slide presentations.

Initially, getting students to register their clickers might be problematic. An instructor site must be established online where



students “enroll” their clickers in the course by logging on and entering their device’s serial number. Once this initial process is complete, however, the class becomes autonomous from the manufacturer’s Web site and online access is no longer required. A handy advantage of using this system in a large lecture hall is tracking class attendance. At the beginning of class, the instructor clicks on the system’s attendance feature and students register their presence by merely pointing their clickers at the front of the room and pressing a button. Attendance can be taken in a matter of seconds using radio-frequency identification (RFID) instead of the time required by traditional means. Attendance results can then be downloaded to Excel or any other class management program.

In large lecture sections, students spend most of their time passively learning. With minimal time for students to actually absorb the material, there is little incentive for students to move beyond taking notes.24 The primary purpose of an audience response system is to actively engage students and provide student feedback. By using clickers as a classroom-polling device, instructors can accomplish this goal. During a lecture, for example, the instructor may wish to pose a thought-provoking question about a complicated topic or just receive confirmation that the students comprehend the material. The question can be put on a PowerPoint slide or simply written on the blackboard in a multiple-choice format. Students then use their clickers to register an answer. using buttons on the remote. After the instructor stops polling, the results can be displayed instantly in a variety of graphical formats. Based on the polling results, the instructor may choose to encourage informal group collaboration, often in pairs or triads, to discuss why each potential choice may be correct or incorrect. An additional advantage is that student responses can be tracked over time and easily downloaded by the instructor for in-depth evaluation.



With clickers, students are active participants who take charge of their learning. Johnson and Sawada noted “significant student increase of conceptual gains” in classes that use electronic response systems in a “constructivist-oriented classroom.”25 Using this technology in combination with discussion groups encourages students to apply their knowledge by sharing ideas with others. This type of “peer teaching” has been found to be effective.26 The advantage of using clickers for in-class feedback is that students and instructors can immediately ascertain whether or not the information presented is understood. Hatch, Jensen, and Moore have touted this system as a means to assess student comprehension. In large classes using traditional lecture format, they note a tendency on the part of their students to misunderstand key concepts. Since using the clickers, Hatch et. al. have seen increased student attentiveness and higher test scores. The team created clicker quizzes to keep students focused on and accountable for lecture material. Quite simply, “. . . when students are held accountable, they are more likely to meet our expectations.”27

Studies on the effects of clicker technology have noted substantial gains in students’ conceptual knowledge, performance on exams, and attendance. Cooper and Robinson’s study found that after the introduction of clickers to large classes, lecture attendance had risen from around 50 percent to about 80 percent, resulting in improved exam scores.28 Likewise, physics instructors have documented a reduction in student attrition with a concomitant rise in attendance.29 In addition, the number of students receiving grades of A or B rose substantially over the same period, with the percentage of students getting increasing from roughly 6 percent to almost 12 percent.

Finally, and not to be discounted, is the fact that students like clickers. Caldwell found that about 85 percent of students polled gave



an overwhelmingly positive evaluation of these little devices.30 Many enjoyed the fact that they were being polled anonymously, thereby eliminating the possible anxiety of giving an incorrect response.31

Some instructors have even improved student appeal and classroom participation by giving quizzes a game show aspect. Student reaction to this method has been positive and upbeat, with students saying that the class keeps them on their toes while increasing their comprehension.

While the discussion above has touted the benefits of clickers as a tool for active learning, it must be pointed out that some troubleshooting may be necessary in order to insure optimum performance. Some versions of the technology require clicker stations to register student responses. Having too few stations in a large lecture hall, or having them in inaccessible locations, will hinder the response process. Therefore, course redesign will require a collaborative effort between Information Technology (IT) personnel, classroom instructors, and equipment vendors in order to optimize system performance.

Technology in the 21st Century ClassroomMost of us can remember a time before PowerPoint, when using computers in the classroom to show online presentations or video clips was not commonplace. There is no question that technology today has the potential to affect the way we engage large sections of American Government classes. Effective use of this technology, however, necessitates rethinking the way we teach and considering how best to employ the types of resources available. Hybrid classes require a greater degree of institutional support—the school must



provide the platform for asynchronous online discussions and panels. If classroom lectures or online content are to be available for download to computers or handheld devices like iPods, the initial outlay in terms of hardware, software, and bulk licensing agreements can be prohibitive. Implementing these methods of instruction involves a broad institutional initiative.

Clickers, however, offer a method that delivers many of the same advantages of hybrid models at a fraction of the cost. They are relatively inexpensive for students and instructors, require minimal preparation for implementation, and are easy to use. This type of interactive technology offers a chance to utilize the constructivist approach to learning as an active process and may employ informal collaborative groups as a means to stimulate peer interactive problem solving. Clickers integrate well with presentation technologies, such as PowerPoint, and offer the additional advantage of being able to give immediate feedback to ensure that learning objectives are met. As noted previously, when students are held accountable, they work harder. Clickers facilitate this process by making it easy to track daily attendance, issue grades for participation, and administer e-quizzes that can be downloaded to most assessment tracking software. Perhaps most importantly, it makes the classes more engaging and often more entertaining—a chance to make larger classes seem a bit smaller.

Technology and Political ActivismThe application of technology, however, extends well beyond the political science classroom. Nowhere is this point more evident than in the recent presidential election. According to the Pew Research Center, the Obama campaign garnered 66 percent of the youth vote ages 19 to 29—a staggering 13 percent gain, higher than any



presidential election in the last 20 years.32 Many attribute this gain to the Obama camp’s savvy use of IT and the Internet to disseminate information, raise capital, register voters, and mobilize his supporters, Obama and his team amassed an e-mail database, tapped social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, and posted videos to YouTube. Policy analyst Geoff Nourquay insists, “Obama’s IT and social networking approaches revolutionized citizen participation.”33

With more than 700,000 active volunteers and nearly 1.5 million Internet “friends” propelling him into office, Barack Obama has been called the “first Internet president.” His administration continues to use information technology to engage the electorate in ways that transcend the boundaries of age, gender, ethnicity, and background. It is no longer politics as usual—it is the dawning of a new age and technology is leading the way.

Notes1University of North Texas, “Quality Enhancement Program: Summary overview of the student focus groups and student survey results,” http://web3.unt.edu/cdl/QEP/index.cfm?M=QEP &PF=appendix02.2Danny Damron and Jonathan Mott, “Creating an Interactive Classroom: Enhancing student engagement and learning in political science courses,” Journal of Political Science Education 1 (2005): 367.3Robert M. Gagne, The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction, 4th ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985). See also Wilbert McKeachie and Marilla Svinicki, McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006).4McKeachie and Svinicki, McKeachie’s Teaching Tips, 36–37.5John Bransford, Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000).6Mary Alice Barksdale-Ladd and Karen F. Thomas, “What’s at Stake in High-Stakes Testing: Teachers and parents speak out,” Journal of Teacher Education 51 (2000): 384–97. 7Gagne, The Conditions of Learning.8Evonne L. Schaeffer, Jennifer A. McGrady, Tina Bhargava, and Claudia Engel, “Innovation From Within the Box: Evaluation of online problem sets in a series of large lecture undergraduate science courses” (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association Seattle, WA., April 10–14, 2001).9Shaeffer et al., “Innovation From Within the Box”: 4.10Ference Marton and Roger Säljö, “On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I Outcome and process,” British Journal of Educational Psychology 46 (1976): 4–11.11Diane Ebert-May, Carol Brewer, and Sylvester Allred, “Innovation in Large Lectures: Teaching for active learning,” BioScience 47, no. 9 (1997): 601.12Ibid., 606.13Donald P. French, “iPods: Informative or Invasive?” Journal of College Science Teaching 36, no. 1 (September 2006): 58.14Stephen Abram, “The Proof is in the Podding,” The Pipeline, Multimedia & Internet @ Schools online (May–June 2006): 22–4.15Duke University Report, “iPod the First Year Experience Final Evaluation Report” (June 2005).16Ibid., 2–5.17Abram, “The Proof is in the Podding”: 23.


http://web3.unt.edu/cdl/QEP/index.cfm?M=QEP


18Jennifer M. Brill and Chad Galloway, “Perils and Promises: University instructors’ integration of technology in classroom-based practices,” British Journal of Education Technology 38, no. 1 (May 2006): 95–105.19University of North Texas, “Quality Enhancement Program: Measuring the success of QEP,” 2006, http://web3.unt.edu/cdl/QEP/index.cfm?M=QEP&PF=measuring.20University of Wisconsin-Madison, “Faculty Resources: Hybrid Courses,” 2007, http://www4 uwm.edu/ltc/hybrid/faculty_resources/advantages.cfm.21Rhonda M. Epper and A.W. Bates, Teaching Faculty How to Use Technology (Westport, CT:American Council on Education/Oryx Press, 2001).22Abram, “The Proof is in the Podding”: 22.23UNT, “Quality enhancement program: Summary overview of the student focus groups.”24Yvonne Steinert and Linda S. Schnell, “Interactive Lecturing: Strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations,” Medical Teacher 21 (January 1999): 37–42.25Eugene Judson and Daiyo Sawada, “Learning From Past and Present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls,” Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 21, no. 2 (2002): 167–181.26David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, and John Rynders, “The Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Goal Structures on Achievement: A meta-analysis,” Psychological Bulletin 89 (1981): 47–62.27Jane E. Caldwell, “Clickers in the Large Classroom: Current research and best-practice tips,” CBE: Life Sciences Education 6 (Spring 2007): 13. Using Technology to Engage Students in Large Classroom Settings 6928James L. Cooper and Pamela Robinson, “The Argument for Making Large Classes Seem Small,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 81 (Spring 2000): 5–16.29Caldwell, “Clickers.”30Ibid., 15.31Damron and Mott, “Creating an Interactive Classroom.”32Pew Forum Report, “The Internet’s Role in Campaign 2008,” Report (2008), http://www .pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/6—The-Internets-Role-in-Campaign-2008.aspx.33Geoff Norquay, “Organizing Without an Organization: The Obama networking revolution,” Policy Options (October 2008).

Essay 4download full file at http://testbankinstant.com

http://www/


GROUP PROJECTS: COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN INTRODUCTORY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT CLASSESEric CoxTexas Christian UniversityProperly designed collaborative learning projects can be helpful tools to introduce students to important concepts in American Government, particularly the many elements involved in the creation of policy in the United States. This chapter draws on research about effective collaborative learning techniques and direct experience in developing an extended collaborative learning project at Texas Christian University (TCU). The goal is to help instructors interested in using collaborative learning to develop effective group projects.

In 2005, TCU began offering an introductory political science class, Practicing American and Texas Politics, which combines a traditional lecture format with a public policy lab. This course has two major goals: to introduce students to American and Texas government institutions, processes, and behaviors, and to introduce students to the public policy process through the public policy lab. Participation



in a public policy lab requires students to identify a public policy problem and design and implement an action plan to address that problem. In designing the class, we gave significant thought to the best way to empower student groups to investigate issues that mattered most to them, and how to help them overcome obstacles that they encountered in implementing their projects. The initial focus was on engaging students in the public policy process, not necessarily using group projects as a pedagogical tool. Through trial and error, the lab has evolved to better reflect the educational objectives of the class and to address problems common to collaborative learning projects: integration of the project into the overall class, the free rider problem, and effective assessment of group work. I use this brief example of collaborative learning at TCU to highlight both the benefits and potential pitfalls of using group projects, a form of collaborative learning, in the classroom. The primary benefit is that group projects are highly permeable and can be applied to many different situations and instructional purposes. To be effective, group projects must be designed to meet teaching and learning objectives, promote effective group collaboration, and provide fair and accurate assessments of each student working in the groups. In this chapter, I will focus on how to design effective group projects, including some of the pitfalls to avoid.

In the first section of this chapter, Group Project Design, I review existing literature on group project design and efficacy, including examples of group projects from both political science and other disciplines. The second section, Creating a Collaborative Learning Project, draws primarily on teaching and learning literature regarding group project design, detailing the basic steps in designing an effective group project. It also offers ways to avoid some of the primary pitfalls of collaborative learning. The third section, Collaborative Learning in Introductory American Government,



provides an extended discussion of the collaborative learning project used in Practicing American and Texas Politics at TCU.

Group Project DesignGroup projects fall into a category of teaching techniques commonly known as collaborative learning, simply defined as “learning through group work rather than learning by working alone.”1 Although some argue that there is a distinction between collaborative learning and other, related concepts such as cooperative learning, for our purposes, the term collaborative learning will be used exclusively to refer to organized group work within classes.2 Barkley, Cross, and Major argue that true collaborative learning must have three essential features: intentional design, collaborating, and meaningful learning. Intentional design is choosing or creating a learning structure specific to the learning task at hand. Collaborating means that the project should require each group member to contribute to the task equally. Finally, as with all instructional efforts, collaborative learning should contribute to increased knowledge and/or understanding of course material and objectives in order to meet the meaningful learning stricture.3 While other authors have some more specific requirements for collaborative learning, this brief list outlines the foundation for successful collaborative learning. Importantly, proponents of collaborative learning also agree that not all group projects are collaborative learning; simply putting students in a group to discuss a question in one class is not collaborative learning.4 Several different works provide advice on structuring different types of group learning projects.

Slavin’s Student Team Learning lays out several different types of group structures to facilitate learning.5 Johnson and Johnson have produced two good primers on what to consider when designing and



assessing effective collaborative learning groups in a variety of settings and for different purposes.6 For works that are more specific to college instruction, Michaelsen, Knight, and Fink provide an impressive guide to establishing effective learning teams, which they distinguish from more temporary forms of group work.7 Barkley, Cross, and Major give several different group formats and instructional models to facilitate the use of collaborative learning..8 One particularly interesting volume, Cooper, Robinson, and Ball’s Small Group Instruction in Higher Education, contains a collection of articles and notes from the newsletter Cooperative Learning and College Teaching.9 It covers a variety of topics, from group design and assessment to the efficacy of group projects.

Taken together, these works, and others like them, are primarily designed to aid in the design of collaborative learning.10 Although they use different terminology and, at times, different structures, the overall advice from these works is quite similar. First, the decision to include group work should only be made if the use of groups will meaningfully advance the learning objectives of the class. The instructor should design the project in a way that will be conducive to achieving the learning goals. Second, the means of assessment should be carefully considered while the project is being designed. Third, students should be assigned to groups. Fourth, the goals, format, and assessment of the project should be clearly communicated to students. Fifth, group work should be monitored from the beginning to the end of collaboration, and student work should be assessed. Finally, the instructor should carefully assess the project when it is over to consider improvements for future classes.

Rather than expand on each of these decisions, this chapter will focus on designing effective collaborative learning projects, and less on the effectiveness of collaborative learning in college. Much of the work that has been done on the subject has appeared in discipline-



specific journals, including PS: Political Science and Politics. One prominent exception is the previously mentioned Cooper et al. collection of essays on small-group instruction. It found that increased peer-to-peer interaction among students not only led to better classroom results, but also positively impacted a range of other student attributes, including depressed attitudes, problem solving, cultural awareness, and overall student satisfaction.11 They found that students at two junior colleges were less likely to drop a course with cooperative learning compared to a class with the same topic but without cooperative learning. Those same students were more likely to remain in school for additional semesters.12 More specifically, professors in a variety of disciplines have found success in using some form of collaborative learning in their classes. In a meta-analysis of almost 20 years of reports on the use of collaborative learning in science, math, engineering, and technology courses, Springer et al. found that students in classes using small-group learning procedures had better attitudes than students in traditional classes, and they performed significantly better on exams and papers than their peers.13

In economics, Moore finds that students who participate in his collaborative learning lab (CLL) component, consisting of groups of students who study for and take a series of short quizzes together with assistance from a student tutor, overwhelmingly “reported that the CLL was very worthwhile and reported that working in groups . . . in the lab was not only more enjoyable but also more helpful.”14 As a means of measuring the efficacy of CLL, Moore considered teaching one class with CLL and another as a control without it (while holding all other factors the same). However, he elected not to do so because he was concerned about potentially providing one set of students with a superior education.15 At the same time, other research suggests that while it may be useful, collaborative learning is only one part of an overall toolkit of techniques available to instructors. For example,



Delucchi found that the use of group projects in a statistics class did not uniformly improve test performance for his students, though he did note that there was no negative effect, and he still use group projects.16 Others have noted that not all students necessarily benefit from group projects, particularly when they approach projects with a negative attitude.17 In political science, specifically, several studies have found that using active learning projects that promote community involvement do not necessarily translate into increased political and civic engagement.18 Finally, most literature that discusses the use of collaborative learning and group projects makes note of the free rider problem and associated ways of handling it.19

Even with these caveats, collaborative learning is being used by a number of political scientists. A quick survey of PS: Political Science and Politics reveals the greatest strength of collaborative learning in the political science classroom: its malleability is limited only by the professor’s imagination (the usual constraints of time and space being observed). The lion’s share of recent articles in PS do not, in fact, focus on the use of collaborative learning per se, but rather, discuss the use of specific exercises that are themselves examples of collaborative learning. For example, several professors have incorporated the use of simulations that incorporate teams into the classroom.20 Other uses of group projects in political science courses include teaching the scientific method,21 civic engagement skills,22

comparative politics,23 and the collective action problem as applied to international relations.24

Creating a Collaborative Learning ProjectThis section provides a basic guide to the types of questions that must



be asked, and answered, in using collaborative learning effectively. The list that follows is not exhaustive, but will serve as a starting point for implementing collaborative learning projects.25

Before determining a teaching methodology, the instructor should focus attention on what students should learn in the class. An introduction to American politics typically has several specific goals. Based on the content of many introductory textbooks, political scientists expect basic courses to cover governmental institutions, political behavior, parties and interest groups, basic public policy, civil rights and liberties, and, in many cases, some political theory. Many faculty members probably have other goals in mind when teaching American politics; indeed, in a survey of college political science instructors, Hunter and Brisbin found that 97 percent believe that the inclusion of citizenship education in the classroom is appropriate, while 43.5 percent consider it a duty.26 So in addition to basic knowledge goals, the instructor needs to determine what additional objectives students should meet, including whether or not one of the expectations for the class is that students will be more likely to be involved politically once the course is completed, and whether or not the course should provide some skills training on how to be a more effective citizen.27

Which instructional methods will achieve the educational objectives?After identifying the primary educational objectives, the

instructor should then consider the range of instructional methods available to achieve those objectives. When considering the use of collaborative learning in the classroom, the first choice is whether or not to use collaborative learning to improve the acquisition of knowledge in class, or to implement a group project that involves some form of independent knowledge and/or skills acquisition. A related question to consider is whether students will have time in class or in a lab to meet, or if all work will occur outside of class. If



the instructor determines that collaborative learning will be a part of the plan, several additional questions are provided here.

Is the collaborative learning element designed to enhance classroom knowledge?

Collaborative learning to enhance knowledge presented through readings or lecture is probably the most commonly used in the classroom. At its most basic form, collaborative learning with this objective in mind could involve putting students in groups to discuss a set of questions, or to analyze an article and then report on it to the class. While this approach may be useful in class and does involve peer interaction, it is only loosely collaborative learning.28 To make it more collaborative, the instructor could use what Johnson and Johnson refer to as base groups. Rather than simply asking students to group together for a few minutes for a given class, these groups will routinely work together on in-class discussions, review of materials for class, and, potentially, class assignments. The key point is that group establishment occurs early in the semester and that membership stays consistent. In this way, students learn to work together withtheir specific group members and develop a more collaborative relationship than if placed in ad hoc discussion groups periodically.29

Or is the project designed to help students acquire independent knowledge and/or skills?

Rather than simply working in groups to enhance knowledge gained in the classroom, the instructor may have students engage in some form of applied learning project. If the objective is to improve students’ citizenship skills, for example, an applied learning project



that involves some form of active political participation may be more effective. This type of project could include directed involvement with a particular organization, or provide groups significant freedom to design and implement their own projects, given certain guidelines.30

Where should students meet?While most long-term group projects will most likely include

significant work outside of the classroom, having at least some of the work done in class allows for direct observation of the group dynamics and early work product. This observation allows for faculty feedback and assistance in a way that might not be possible if the work is done entirely outside of the classroom. As noted above, the allotted time could occur in an associated lab. If the class does not have an associated lab, the instructor can provide a set amount of time either at the beginning or end of class. As the groups get started, providing one to two days for students to meet for an entire class period may help the groups develop greater cohesion. The students will experience less stress in trying to arrange group meetings, getting to know one another, and attempting to overcome the free rider problem.

How large should the group be?The answer to this question depends, at least in part, on the

nature and length of the assignment. For more informal learning that occurs entirely within the classroom, groups with as few as two students may be useful. For projects that occur over time, larger groups may be needed. Once a group exceeds six or seven members, however, the collective action problem is harder to overcome and free



riding becomes more of an issue among group members. Groups of four to five students usually have enough members so that students can divide tasks among themselves, but are not so large that students are tempted to free ride. Larger groups also introduce other complications for group members, including more difficulty in scheduling meetings outside of class, combining individual elements into a cohesive project, and developing a cohesive working dynamic.31

How should groups be formed?Instructors have several options in assigning students to groups.

The most common are self-selection, random assignment, selective assignment, and interest assignment. Each has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of self-selection include more rapid group cohesion if the members already know one another, less dissatisfaction with being assigned to work with students with whom they may not get along, and earlier ownership of the process. Disadvantages are that some students in the class may feel left out and therefore begin the assignment on a negative note.32 Also, students may select groups that lack diversity on a variety of measures (gender, classification, activities, race, socio-economic status, etc.), and in a class where students do not already know each other, creating groups may be a long process that adds little to the learning experience. Random assignment of groups based on class rosters (having students “number off,” or other methods not based on student traits or self-selection) solves the basic problems of having some students feel left out. It can reduce the stress of forming groups with people who do not know each other, but it does not address concerns of group diversity or group cohesion. Selective assignment, however, allows the instructor to achieve groups with some element of diversity or other attributes desired for instructional purposes. For example, in



a class with a mixture of lowerclassmen and upperclassmen, selective assignment will allow instructors to avoid having groups made up entirely of first-year students. Theoretically, the greater experience of older students may be beneficial to the younger ones. The downside of selective assignment is that in choosing one or two factors to prioritize, other important factors may be left out. Selective assignment does not guarantee group cohesion. The last type of assignment is interest, or task, assignment. If each group will be addressing a different topic, or different parts of the same topic, the instructor may ask students to communicate their preferred topic and then be asked to join the group that is addressing that topic. If too many students are interested in one topic, the instructor can either ask for volunteers to work in a group with fewer students or, if enough students express interest, divide the group in two. If a group has too few students, the instructor can again ask for volunteers to increase the group size, or fold the group into another small group. Student interest can be expressed either in writing or as a type of introductory activity.33 If used as an introductory activity, students should introduce themselves to the class and state which topics interest them the most, while the instructor takes notes. The main benefit of assigning students to groups is that it eases the stress of groups finding their own topic and encourages students with similar interests to work together.34

Should the instructor assign roles within the group?

Some projects, particularly simulations, may require clearly defined roles within the group. Even projects without the clear need for defined roles may benefit from having a student serve as the liaison or contact point with the course instructor. The benefits of assigning roles in such settings is that it avoids confrontational



dynamics within the group if multiple students desire the same role and, if time is an issue, saves time in moving the group work forward. Allowing students to select their own roles, however, does allow the group to start taking more ownership of the project at an earlier time and may encourage students to take on roles with which they are comfortable, aiding the learning process.What method of assessment should the instructor use?

Assessing group projects can create stress for both the instructor and the students.35 Students might be concerned that either their grades will be harmed by students who free ride, or, similarly, that students who free ride will receive the same grade as other students in the group in spite of not having contributed to the group project. The instructor is concerned with principles ofequity—making sure students receive a grade based on the work they did—and promoting effective collaborative learning. In choosing how to assess the group, the instructor has three options: (1) give the same grade to all participants, (2) develop a method whereby each student receives a wholly independent grade, or (3) create some combination of the two. In the first, all students share equally in the grade for their group. Free riding may be discouraged if you believe the other members of the group will not do an effective project; free riding may occur if students are more willing to see a slightly lower grade while not having to do work. In the second option, the instructor can create an individual assignment (e.g., an essay or a portfolio) that each individual must complete based on their group project. A student who did not contribute significantly to the group project will, presumably, not do as well on such an assignment. In addition, the instructor may ask the students to provide a written evaluation of the contribution of each group member, but should be careful to screen out outlying assessments (e.g., one student harshly criticizes another who received praise from all other group members).



Third, the instructor could combine methods by assigning a grade to the group, but also having some combination of individual assignments and/or peer review. Other assessment decisions need to be made as well. For long-term projects, interim assessments are useful both to gauge progress and to address concerns immediately, rather than allowing them to escalate. In addition, the instructor should determine how much to weigh process factors (i.e., meeting deadlines, format, presentations) versus the content of the group project.

What form should the assignment take?As with any assignment, the instructor should clearly

communicate what students are expected to do, what the objective of the assignment is, and how assessment will occur. The assignment is best communicated both verbally and in writing. The assignment should be related to the overall context of the class.

How should you monitor progress?Whether a collaborative learning exercise lasts only a few

minutes within a class period or over the course of a semester, the instructor should monitor the groups as they work. If the groups are working in the classroom, the instructor should be available for questions, circulating through the room checking on the groups to: (1) make sure they are on task,36 (2) monitor their progress on the task at hand, (3) see if some group members are being excluded, and (4) answer any questions that may arise as the students discuss their assignment. For long-term assignments, instructors should either build interim reports into the assignment/assessment of the project or



ask groups for periodic, less formal updates on progress. These updates could occur as class presentations, written assignments, or even e-mails. At this stage, feedback on the interim report is essential, especially if some groups are in danger of not completing their assignments. Finally, if time permits, the instructor may find it useful to set up meetings with each group during the course of the project for an interim, interactive review of progress to date, including a discussion of what needs to be done to complete the assignments.

How do you assess the effectiveness of the project?

As with any new class or teaching technique, assessment of the technique’s effectiveness is essential to improving its use in the future—or deciding whether or not to continue its use. Besides student evaluations, the use of a specific survey on student reaction to the project may be useful to gauge student support for the technique. In assessing the effectiveness of the project in meeting learning outcomes, the work product of the students is a good place to start. Additional tools could include the use of pretest and/or posttests; comparisons between students using collaborative learning and those who are not; and comparisons of test results prior to the introduction of collaborative learning with test results after its introduction.

Collaborative Learning in Introductory American GovernmentIn spring 2005, the TCU Political Science Department first offered, in addition to its traditional American and Texas Government courses, an alternative—Practicing American and Texas Politics, which includes a lab component. Students can both engage in a group public policy



project and hear from individuals directly involved in the public policy process. This alternative course has taken two different forms: In the first form, multiple sections of the lecture class are offered. Students from each section of lecture come together in one lab, led by a separate lab instructor. In the second form, one section of lecture is offered with a separate lab, again led by a lab instructor. The primary goal of the course is to introduce students to federal, state, and local government institutions and basic political behavior while encouraging future political knowledge and participation in the policy process. The two primary instructional methods are lecture mixed with class discussion in the professor-led sections, and a collaborative learning project with guest speakers in the lab. The intent of the public policy project is for students to identify an issue about which they are concerned, and then address that issue by designing and implementing an action plan. Given the short time frame, students are encouraged, but not required, to focus on local issues and gaining access to local government institutions.

For our purposes, the TCU public policy lab can serve as an excellent working example of how collaborative learning enhances American Government studies. From the beginning, Practicing American and Texas Politics has included a separate lab where the collaborative learning project would be housed. The lab component not only allows for guest speakers without taking time away from the usual coverage of topics, but also allows sufficient time for groups to meet and conduct much of the necessary group work during class. Allotting time for group work to occur in class helps to combat free riding and, at the very least, helps to monitor attendance. Students still meet outside of the class, but are guaranteed at least one time per week when all students are together. And by including lab time, we can offer the class for four hours of credit instead of three.

Among other initial choices that we have continued to follow, we



give students a great deal of freedom in choosing the project they create. Although we suggest broad topics, students are free to address those topics, or ones of their choosing, in any manner they desire. No topic has been vetoed for content reasons, although we do occasionally suggest new topics on projects for something that appears unworkable. For example, many groups set out to change health care policy. While interest in the topic is admirable, we encourage students to tackle a small piece of the puzzle as it relates to the local area. In 2008, both in the spring and fall semesters, students were also encouraged to engage in projects related to the presidential election. Not all groups pursued such projects, but several chose to encourage voter participation by young voters—thus continuing a project of previous groups. They disseminated information about the election both on our campus and in local high schools, and including information on how to register to vote and how to vote absentee.

Several methods of assigning students have been used, including all of those mentioned above. Based on student feedback and our own observations of what is most effective, we have adopted a system of somewhat selective assignment that takes gender and classification into account. Students are assigned to groups before their first lab. This method is used largely to save time on the first day of lab, and no particular advantage has been observed with other methods. We do allow some movement between groups in the first few weeks. In the first three weeks of the lab, students are introduced to the assignment and the instructor’s expectations. The first task we ask groups to complete is a statement of the problem they wish to address. This statement is expected to include the scope, duration, intensity, and resource implications of the problem based on their research (citations are expected). Students then develop an action plan to address the issue, or at least some piece of the issue. While



they design their action plans, students should establish attainable, measurable goals, develop a timeline based on those goals, and assign tasks to group members to meet the deadlines. In the process, students are also taught to identify relevant stakeholders in the community, resources available to them to complete the project, and what is currently being done to address the issue at each level of government. This last step also encourages students to work with local groups where possible.

During the semester, we measure student progress through the completion of multiple assignments. Groups turn in reports on the topic, an action plan and timeline, two written updates on progress (derived from the original action plan and timeline), and a final group presentation and portfolio. In addition, each student writes an individual reflection on his or her role in completing the project.

The lab component of the class makes up 30 percent of each student’s final grade. The decision on what percentage of the course grade the lab should be has changed from semester to semester, ranging from a high of 40 percent to a low of 25 percent. Setting the percentage too high had the perceived effect of students not working as hard in the lecture section, while setting the percentage too low had the effect of students deemphasizing the lab. The lab grade is a combination of a group grade, which is determined with reference to a basic rubric given to all students, plus the evaluation of the individual reflective paper, and consideration of written peer assessments of each group member. The final piece of the project is for each group to turn in a portfolio of its work, including all earlier assignments, and a final assignment in which members evaluate the group’s successes, areas for improvement, and anything they wish had been done differently. The portfolio also includes a log of how much time each student spent on different aspects of the project. Requiring the log sheet with the final portfolio is an additional check



against free riding, and any consequences for it can be determined at this final stage.

Challenges in implementing the labThe public policy project lab has not been without its problems.

First, some students initially expressed some confusion over the link between the lab and the main class. We have worked to combat this problem in several ways. The first few days of class are now devoted to an introduction to public policy and the various avenues for engaging in public debate and decision-making. Once groups have selected their topics, we encourage students to draw on their group project experience to prompt class discussions on political behavior and institutions. The projects seem to provide special insight to students on local governance issues. The group projects also make explanations of the collective action problem far simpler; students immediately grasp the free rider concept and that it becomes more problematic as groups get larger. Finally, the last day of class is devoted to summarizing the relationship between institutions and behavior through the lens of the public policy problems students have attempted to address. Second, students often set unrealistic goals initially. As the lab instructor encourages students to take a more realistic approach to their chosen issue—that is, set goals that can be met in a semester—some students grow a bit frustrated at the slow pace of change and the difficulty of tackling issues. In some cases, this frustration can lead students to determine that political involvement serves little purpose. This frustration also frequently occurs when students do not receive what they consider to be a fair hearing from elected and non-elected government officials. To combat this frustration, the lab instructor frequently works with students to set goals that will provide some challenge to students, but will also be



attainable. We also make it a point to lead a discussion regarding the class’s place in the public policy process. To help students see that they are part of a larger effort, we encourage them to work with existing agencies and nonprofit organizations. In addition, we allow for project continuation; students can pick up a project that was begun by a previous group, establish new goals, and continue the work of others. In some cases, students have taken the project they created in the lab and continued to work on it after the course ended. Third, as an introductory course, many of the students are in their first year at TCU and are not familiar with the area. This lack of familiarity can sometimes lead to difficulty in finding contacts. Where appropriate, the lab instructor will help initiate contacts with members of the community. In addition, students receive instruction on how best to contact public officials and organizations. Students are asked to include copies of all correspondence in their final portfolios. Fourth, the lab does tend to raise student grades. Much of the group project grade is procedural. If students follow the procedure, they are likely to have appropriate content, leading to high grades. This opens the lab to charges of grade inflation. As noted above, the lab now makes up a smaller percentage of the student grade than it did initially. This also diminishes the grade inflation effect. Also, the lab instructor has more flexibility to grade students down for projects with a lower degree of difficulty, provided students are warned about this as they create their action plans. Fifth, the lab entails significant work. The current lab instructor is a staff member at TCU with other program responsibilities.37 The level of work required to supervise the student groups could be done by a single professor teaching both the lecture and the lab, but the use of a lab-specific instructor makes collaborative learning much easier to implement. The use of a teaching assistant or some other form of support is recommended for particularly elaborate collaborative learning projects. In spite of these



difficulties, we continue to offer Practicing American and Texas Politics, and to receive positive feedback from students. The course was designed as an experiment to improve civic knowledge among TCU students and has evolved each semester to better meet that goal. As one measure of satisfaction, course evaluations for this class have been in-line with instructors’ evaluations in other classes, if not higher in some instances.

ConclusionWell-designed collaborative learning projects can provide students with unique learning experiences that complement traditional classroom learning. One of the principal advantages of collaborative learning is the many forms it can take, from group research projects, to community-based research, to simulations, to the public policy project we use at TCU. In designing a collaborative learning project, instructors should keep several things in mind:

Every assignment must have clear goals and objectives. Collaborative learning should not be pursued for its own sake, but rather, it should further learning objectives.

The design of the assignment should include assessment of student work, including a determination of whether or not to include individual assessment.

The assignment and its objectives should be clearly communicated to students.

The instructor must develop a method to monitor the progress of student groups. Finally, the instructor should continually seek areas for improving the collaborative learning project.

One final matter should be noted. Collaborative learning may be especially important in teaching introductory American politics



classes because when students are asked to participate directly in a political process, they may be more likely to continue to be involved politically. Service and volunteerism, while important, do not directly lead to increased political activity.38 Active citizenship training, on the other hand, does lead to improved political participation. As we have noted, a significant majority of political science faculty members believe that they have a responsibility to engage students in citizenship education, yet many of them do not.39 The use of collaborative learning is one means of bringing vital citizenship education into the American politics classroom.

Notes1Elizabeth F. Barkley, K. Patricia Cross, and Claire H. Major, Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005), 4. The authors note that alternative terms for collaborative learning include “cooperative learning, team learning, group learning, or peer-assisted learning.”2See James L. Cooper, Pamela Robinson, and David Ball, eds., Small Group Instruction in Higher Education: Lessons from the Past, Visions of the Future (Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, 2003): Section 1, for a variety of viewpoints on the differences and similarities between collaborative and cooperative learning.3Barkley et al., Collaborative Learning Techniques (2005), 4. 4See, for example, James L. Cooper, “What is Cooperative Learning?” in Cooper et al. (2003), 3–5. Originally published in the Cooperative Learning and College Teaching Newsletter (Fall, 1990); Also, John D. Ochipinti, “Active and Accountable: Teaching Comparative PoliticsUsing Cooperative Team Learning,” PS: Political Science and Politics 36, 1 (January 2003): 69; Also, David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson, Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning, 5th ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999): Chapter Five. This chapter has a longer set of requirements to distinguish true cooperative learning from other forms of group learning. David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson, Assessing Studentsin Groups: Promoting Group Responsibility and Individual Accountability (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2004), 24–5, summarizes these differences through discussion of four types of groups: pseudo-learning, traditional classroom learning, cooperative learning, and high-performance cooperative learning groups. The primary distinguishing characteristic for each author is the recognition of the importance of insuring input by all group members, motivation by all group members to achieve high performance, and working together to achieve tasks, amongother things. Karl Smith, “Grading Cooperative Projects,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 74 (Summer 1998): 59–67 has a slightly different list geared toward proper design of cooperative learning groups in order to facilitate quality assessment.5Robert E. Slavin, Student Team Learning: An overview and practical guide (Washington, DC: NEA Professional Library, 1988).6Johnson and Johnson (2004); Johnson and Johnson (1999).7Larry K. Michaelsen, Arletta Bauman Knight, L. Dee Fink, eds., Team-Based Learning (Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2002).8Barkley et al. (2005).9Cooper et al. (2003).10For a shorter, online version of basic instructions, see “Surviving the Group Project: A Note on Working in Teams,” http://web.cba.neu.edu/~ewertheim/teams/ovrvw2.htm.11Alexander Astin, “What Matters in College? Implications for Cooperative Learning of a New National Study,” in Cooper et al. (2003), 44–62. Originally published in Cooperative Learning and College Teaching Newsletter (Spring 1993).12James L. Cooper and Pamela Robinson, “FIPSE-Sponsored CL Research at Dominguez Hills and Community Colleges,” in Cooper et al. (2003), 29–32. Originally published in Cooperative Learning and College Teaching



Newsletter (Fall 1994).13Leonard Springer, Mary Elizabeth Stanne, and Samuel Donovan, “Measuring the Success ofSmall-Group Learning in College-Level SMET Teaching: A Meta-Analysis,” http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/CL1/CL/resource/scismet.pdf. Heidi Fencl and Karen Scheel, “Engaging students:An examination of the effects of teaching strategies on self-efficacy and course climate in a nonmajors physics course,” Journal of College Science Teaching 35, no. 1 (September 2005): 20–24, also find that collaborative learning techniques help improve student efficacy in physics classes which, in turn, improves student performance.14Robert L. Moore, “Teaching Introductory Economics with a Collaborative Learning Lab Component,” The Journal of Economic Education 29, no. 4 (Fall 1998): 321–329.15Ibid.16Michael Delucchi, “The Efficacy of Collaborative Learning Groups in an Undergraduate Statistics Course,” College Teaching 54, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 244–248. Delucchi also notes that while many articles advocate for the use of group projects in statistics classes, very little actual research on the effectiveness of the method in improving actual statistical abilities exists.17Ali Rassuli and John P. Manzer, “‘Teach us to learn’: Multivariate analysis of perception ofsuccess in team learning,” Journal of Education in Business 81, no. 1 (September–October 2005):21–27. In this study, the major factors associated with negative attitude were grade expectations and team size. Group size was negatively correlated with student perceptions of the group project; i.e., students preferred working in smaller groups. Students with higher grade expectations usually had more experience with team learning and had a more positive attitude toward it. Rassuli and Manzer do suggest that with a well-designed and monitored group project, attitude and performance could be improved.18Anne Colby, “Educating for Democracy” (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2006); William J. Ball, “From Community Engagement to Political Engagement,” PS: Political Science and Politics 38, no. 2 (April 2005): 287–91; Mary Kirlin, “Civic Skill Building: The Missing Component in Service Programs?” PS: Political Science & Politics 35, no. 3 (September 2002): 571–575.19See Rassuli and Manzer (2005) on the effect of free rider concerns on student attitude. Karl Smith, “Grading Cooperative Projects,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 74 (Summer 1998): 59–67 discusses ways of combating free riding through assessment mechanisms. Robert Maranto and April Gresham, “Using ‘World Series Shares’ to Fight Free Riding in Group Projects,” PS: Political Science and Politics 31, no. 4 (December 1998): 789–91 applies the concept of “World Series shares” to combating free riding in group projects in political scienceclasses. Johnson and Johnson (1999) and Johnson and Johnson (2004) also devote significant attention to addressing the free rider problem. In fact, insuring that each group member is invested in the project is a central point for Johnson and Johnson. Robert H. Swansbrough, “Familiarity Breeds Respect Toward Congress: Teams in the Classroom and Workplace,” PS: Political Science and Politics 36, no. 4 (October 2003): 769–72, reports that almost half of hisstudents had at least a slight problem with free riding in a congressional simulation.

20See John A. Grummel, “Using Simulation to Teach Decision-Making within the Policy Process,” PS: Political Science and Politics 36, no. 4 (October 2003): 787–89; Swansbrough (2003); Edward L. Lascher Jr., “Lessons from the Collective Action Game,” PS: Political Science and Politics 38, no. 4 (October 2005): 777–80.21Leanne C. Powner, “Teaching the Scientific Method in the Active Learning Classroom,” PS: Politics and Society 39, no. 3 (July 2006): 521–524.22Ball (2005) uses collaborative learning projects with the explicit goal of building civic responsibility and community involvement. Ball also uses community-based research, another promising active-learning technique. Ball explicitly addresses and adds to research on the types of activities that can promote political engagement as opposed to promoting volunteerism outside of the political context.23Occhipinti (2003).24G. Dale Thomas, “The Isle of Ted Simulation: Teaching Collective Action in International Relations and Organization,” PS: Political Science and Politics 35, no. 3 (September 2002): 555–59.25This section is based primarily on the works of Johnson and Johnson (1999), Johnson and Johnson (2004), and Michaelson et al. (2002).26Susan Hunter and Richard A. Brisbin Jr., “Civic Education and Political Science: A Survey of Practices,” PS: Political Science and Politics 36, no. 4 (October 2003): 759–63.27Johnson and Johnson (1999), 18, recommend creating both academic objectives and social skills objectives, with the latter focusing on the types of skills that assist in social interaction.28See Johnson and Johnson (1999), 55–58, on effective use of ad hoc learning groups of this type.29Johnson and Johnson 1999; Moore (1998) provides a good example of this type of group in teaching introductory economics. Students work together on certain assignments throughout the semester. If the group works well together, they may receive bonuses on exams or individual assignments.30The next section will provide an extended discussion of one example of this type of project.31This is not to say that free riding will not occur, but it is less likely to occur in smaller groups than in larger groups. Observation of student groups in our class at TCU suggest that free riding and coordination problems become more problematic in groups of six or more students.32See Rassuli and Manzer (2005) on why this could negatively impact performance.



33For this activity, divide the room into sections, and assign each section a topic. Have students move to the section that reflects their interests: These become the groups.34More discussion of this method will follow in the next section. I have used all of these methods in my classes, and have observed benefits and drawbacks of each.35See Smith (1998) for a concise discussion of assessing collaborative learning projects.36Though it is important to allow students to have some time to get to know another, particularly if the group will be working on a semester-long (or even days or weeks-long) project.37Many students who complete Practicing American and Texas Politics go on to complete a local internship through the Political Science Department.38See Ball (2005) and Kirlin (2002).39Hunter and Brisbin (2003).

Essay 5



FROM CIVIC ENGAGEMENT TO INFORMED ADVOCACY Michelle LorenziniSaint Louis UniversityThe health of a democracy depends on an active, informed, and engaged citizenry. For many years, political scientists expressed concern over the future strength of our democracy as we witnessed declining civic engagement, especially among younger generations of Americans. As Patterson states, “Today’s young adults are less politically interested and informed than any cohort of young people on record.”1 While many political scientists are concerned with decreased civic engagement and rising political apathy among their students, I have found increased student frustration arising from the perceived ineffectiveness of their social activism. Many of my students are attracted to Saint Louis University (SLU) because of its Jesuit social justice mission. They are inspired to act to address global and local injustices. However, they feel they lack the tools and knowledge to facilitate change effectively. As one SLU student stated, “Many SLU students have been serving community needs for several years now. However, they have been expressing discontent and frustration with the walls they have run into. They want to understand why the community service is necessary to begin with. They want to understand and alleviate the causes of injustice. Students were getting frustrated with the idea of charity, which more often than not takes the form of community service.” To fill this void, we developed



an interdisciplinary service-learning course, The Structure of Poverty, Globally and Locally. This course is designed to help students make connections between involvement in community service and political engagement. The goal is for students to translate student activism into informed advocacy.

This chapter describes the development of this course and analyzes its progress toward informing student activism. In addition, it locates the course in the context of scholarship on civic engagement. While civic engagement programs across U.S. college campuses have been successful in engaging students in service, they have been less successful in promoting political engagement. This project is intended to take another step forward in civic engagement by moving beyond service to informed advocacy.

The Engaged CitizenWhat is an engaged citizen? How do we prepare our students to become civically engaged? While these questions are at the heart of the discipline of political science, they have become increasingly important across American universities in the last two decades. However, while this renewed interest in civic engagement spread across college campuses, so has ambiguity and confusion about what the term means, particularly as the concept has expanded in meaning in recent years.2 For example, Macedo, et al. define civic engagement as “any activity, individual or collective, devoted to influencing the collective life of the polity.”3

So, what is civic engagement? We know it is more than voting. We know it is more than community service. We could write a laundry list of things that make up civic engagement, but few of these activities alone would capture what we as political scientists envision as civic engagement. Moreover, when political scientists speak of civic



engagement, we are primarily concerned with political engagement. However, civic engagement programs across college campuses tend to devote minimal attention to political engagement, and instead, emphasize volunteer service activities at the individual level.4 As political scientists, do we need to be concerned about the neglect of political engagement in campus civic engagement programs?

Political Disengagement, but Increased Volunteerism

Numerous studies uncovered what seemed to be an apparent paradox across college campuses in the 1990s. On one hand, they revealed a continuous decline in political engagement since the 1970s, as indicated by both declining electoral participation and decreased knowledge and interest in political affairs. On the other hand, they found a significant increase in community service among college students beginning in the 1990s.5 Longo and Meyer term this the “scissor effect” as the trends in voting and volunteering split apart like the blades of a scissors.6 Survey data indicate that political apathy and civic disengagement increased for all age groups since the 1970s, but is especially pronounced among younger generations of Americans.7 Since 1972, when 18-year-olds first voted, electoral turnout among voters ages 18 to 24 has been the lowest of any age group and has continued to decline over time, dropping from 50 percent in 1972 to 32 percent in 1996.8 Scholars advanced explanations for this declining civic engagement, including alienation from the political system9 and the excessive individualism of contemporary American culture.10

While scholars continued to find declining political engagement in the 1990s, they also found an increase in community service work and volunteerism among younger generations.11 In a national survey of college undergraduates, the Institute of Politics at Harvard University



found that nearly 66 percent volunteered recently in their community and more than 40 percent volunteered at least a few times per month.12 Sax offers one explanation for this contradiction in which a growth in service activities has not led to a parallel increase in political engagement: “It is quite possible that students are simply placing their energies where they feel they can make a difference. . . students simply may not perceive politics as an effective vehicle for positive change.”13

Several scholars argue that this increase in community service can actually lead to political disengagement. Walker argues, “Educators cannot simply assume that service contributes to political engagement. Rather, I fear, service has been positioned as a morally superior alternative.”14 Eliasoph argues that students see service as a replacement or more desirable alternative to political engagement.15

Lawry et al. speculate, “It may be that the significant increase in volunteerism in the college years and beyond is actually a detriment to the kind of full civic engagement many believe is necessary for a democratic society.”16

While numerous studies have documented continued declining political engagement throughout the 1990s, more recent research indicates that political engagement among college students is on the upswing in recent years.17 In a study conducted by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), Kiesa et al. report that the gap between voting and volunteering began to narrow in 2004 as students became more politically engaged.18 This is most evident in the increased youth voter turnout in the 2004 and 2008 general elections.19

Three key findings in the CIRCLE study are particularly relevant for this project:20

1. While college students of the Millennial Generation have a greater degree of civic and political engagement than college



students from Generation X, a significant number of college students continue to view politics as irrelevant. Political apathy among college students continues to be a problem.21

2. The rate of volunteerism among college students of the Millennial Generation has increased significantly. Many of these students see community service as “alternative politics,” an effective way for them to make a difference in the world.3. While civic engagement has increased, many college students of the Millennial Generation do not feel adequately informed or knowledgeable about the political system to be effectively engaged politically. They want to be engaged, but they do not know how.

The findings in the CIRCLE study are consistent with my interactions with students inside and outside of the classroom at SLU, and have been critical in the development of The Structure of Poverty. In October 2007, a reporter was interviewing SLU students and asked why, despite its unpopularity, the Iraq War was not leading to student protests on college campuses. One student interviewed acknowledged his political apathy by stating, “A lot of college students just don’t care.” However, a second student responded by saying, “We are not apathetic. We prefer to create social change by joining community service organizations, instead of protesting.”

The nationwide increase in volunteerism and community service among college students is clearly reflected on the campus of SLU. In a 2005 survey, 96 percent of SLU students reported completing some service hours during the previous year. As reported by SLU’s Office of Community Outreach, SLU students completed more than 693,000 service hours in 2006. The sole mission of this office is to provide service opportunities for students, faculty, and staff by helping them connect with local community service organizations. SLU students are not only involved in service in their local community, but are also



engaged in community service around the globe. For example, the student organization Students United for Africa (SUFA) raised more than $30,000 to build an elementary school in Ghana, and is now raising money to build a library for the community. Students from this organization have visited the village school and have engaged in service in the local community. Many of these students clearly view service as alternative politics, an alternative means of bringing about social change. As the founder of SUFA stated, “No matter how young we are, we have the responsibility and the privilege of serving those around us. Through our many blessings, we have the tremendous ability to improve the world.” SLU students have responded to this “call to action” and are inspired to address global and local injustices. As a Catholic, Jesuit university, our mission is to educate students to be fully prepared to contribute to society and to be effective leaders of social change. This mission and tradition of social justice attracts students who want to serve the local community and encourages faculty to incorporate service-learning opportunities into the curriculum. However, these activities largely focus on volunteering at local charitable organizations.

Connecting Service and PoliticsThis project is intended to take another step forward in civic engagement by connecting community service with political engagement. One question prompted the development of this course: What happens once students are engaged in service? Interestingly, it was our students who asked this question. This course grows directly out of students’ motivation to more deeply integrate their scholarship with their commitment to social justice and service. Two student leaders from One World, a student social justice organization, initiated this course proposal. The mission of One World is to raise



awareness and to respond actively and collectively to global and local injustices. These two students proposed bringing the mission of One World into the classroom and formally institutionalizing this mission as part of the social science curriculum.

While One World has been successful as a student organization, the students recognized the need for social science faculty expertise to guide their work. They not only wanted to raise awareness of issues of social injustice and to serve those in need, but they also wanted to examine and understand the factors that underlie injustice. However, they felt they lacked the tools and knowledge to effectively bring about change. They recognized that this requires knowledge of political, social, and economic structures, and how these structures shape the possibilities for individual and collective social justice initiatives. As one of the student leaders of One World stated, “Students were beginning to reveal for themselves that much of the walls they were running into in the community were built and supported by some of the very structures our society is based on. They began to realize that most of the world’s greatest problems stem from structural injustices . . . Students were eager to draw on faculty knowledge to become fully educated about the systemic nature of the injustice before they advocated for it—as a result, the activism would be focused, direct, and, therefore, effective.”

Informed AdvocacyOur students are inspired to act, but they want to become

informed advocates. One student commented, “Many of us are already involved in activism for things such as antiwar protests and workers’ rights. However, we are disillusioned with this type of common blind activist attitude of fervent protesting, without careful thought of the result or other smarter alternatives. Many [students] believe that



fervent protesting is no longer the answer and neither is community service or merely sitting in a classroom only learning about the issues.” If students are to effectively apply what they learn in the classroom and heed their call to action to address global and local injustices, then the social sciences, and political science in particular, must teach them how to increase the efficacy of their actions. We need to move beyond civic engagement, narrowly defined as community service, to the idea of informed advocacy. Informed advocacy includes both raising awareness of issues of public concern and responding collectively to address these issues by advocating for policy change. This requires informed and active engagement with the political system. The problem is that students lack the knowledge to participate meaningfully in the process of governance. They lack political literacy. Informed advocacy is a way for students to make connections between their community service work and political engagement. By combining the two, they can become informed advocates and effective leaders of social change. Their community service becomes a vehicle for connecting with the political system—it motivates them. It adds a personal dimension to an abstract policy problem and allows students to see firsthand which public policies are ineffective, insufficient, or even creating problems. However, we must also provide students with the skills necessary to navigate the political system and understand the process of governance. A service-learning course can become the tool to make this connection.22

Development of the Course – The Structure of Poverty, Globally and Locally

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, to help students make the connections between community service and political engagement, we created The Structure of Poverty, Globally and Locally—an interdisciplinary, service-learning course.23 While the



theoretical component of the course focuses on the structural causes of poverty and how these structures hinder or propel antipoverty efforts, the service-learning component of the course focuses on engaging students in a community-based research project aimed at poverty alleviation. The goal is for students to use the theoretical knowledge they gain in the classroom to become informed advocates in their service activities. The initial development of this course involved collaboration among social science faculty from the Departments of Political Science, Sociology and Criminal Justice, and Public Policy Studies, undergraduate and graduate students, and a nonprofit community organization known as the Queen of Peace Center (QOPC).24 Currently, this collaboration has expanded to include the School of Social Work.25 The development of this course was generously funded by the VOICES Project at Saint Louis University. Our community partner agency, Queen of Peace Center, provides substance abuse treatment services for women and their children living in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area. An overwhelming majority of QOPC consumers are low-income, unemployed, homeless, single mothers with poor social supports: 80 percent are homeless at admission, 90 percent have suffered trauma, 70 percent have co-occurring disorders, 51 percent are uninsured, and 49 percent are Medicaid clients. In 2007, QOPC served nearly 1,200 women, providing comprehensive family-based treatment services through four programs: Comprehensive Substance Abuse Treatment and Rehabilitation (CSTAR), Peace for Kids (a day care and child development center), St. Philippine Home (a transitional housing program serving women and their children), and Shelter Plus Care (permanent housing units that provide safe and affordable housing through rental assistance for homeless and disabled individuals and families).



Course Content and Service-Learning Research Project

In The Structure of Poverty, we examine the theoretical and empirical literature on the structural causes of poverty at the global and local level from a multidisciplinary perspective. While other variables are not discounted, the course focuses on the social, political, and economic structures that produce and perpetuate cycles of poverty. The global dimension of the course focusesprimarily on developing countries. The local dimension focuses on policies in the U.S., with some emphasis placed on research conducted in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area.26 The course begins at the local level and builds to the global level. The course is organized around the following questions:

1. What is poverty? How should poverty be measured? Locally? Globally?

2. How do we view poverty? Political Ideologies and the Role of Values

3. What are the attributes of poverty? Who is more likely to be poor?

4. What are the structural causes of poverty? Global and Local Perspectives

5. What are the solutions? Global and Local Approaches6. Why should we care? What can we do? How do we become informed advocates? While faculty members developed the course content and readings in collaboration with students, we worked with QOPC to develop the service component of the class. The intent was to create a research project that would accomplish several goals: Help students understand the structural causes of poverty

by seeing the connections between problems in their own



local communities and local and far-reaching global structures.

Provide personal experiences for the students to interact with the clients of QOPC, so they can experience firsthand how the problems faced by clients intersect with poverty and how existing public policies impact these individuals.

Enable students to become informed advocates working on behalf of the agency.

Serve the needs of QOPC by enabling it to expand the services it currently offers to its clients toward poverty alleviation. We decided that there would be two parts of the service component. First, to facilitate interaction between the clients of QOPC and the students, the students would conduct one-on-one interviews with the clients to gather information for an updated general needs assessment survey of the organization. The second component would be a class research project in which the students collect the data and information necessary for QOPC to apply for a $1 million federal grant from the Federal Office of Community Services for the Assets for Independence Program (AFI). The AFI Program is a matched savings account that enables low-income families to save money to acquire an economic asset. If successful in securing the grant, QOPC would implement an innovative new program for its clients that would serve the dual purpose of providing incentives to stay in long-term treatment and of helping its clients to accumulate savings that could be used to acquire an asset as a poverty alleviation strategy. As long as the client stayed in the program, QOPC would use the grant funds to match client savings. These savings could then be used for post-



secondary education or training, home ownership, or capitalization of a small business. The students would be divided into six groups that covered different areas of the grant proposal: needs assessment of the target population, potential financial partners, housing affordability in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area, local microfinancing partners, local post-secondary education and training programs, and local financial educational services.

Course AssessmentDuring and after the initial offering of the course in fall 2007, I

met with the instructor, administrators from QOPC, and students to evaluate the course. Based on these discussions and written course evaluations, the following five problem areas were identified:

1. The course needed to make more explicit connections between the course readings, the community service project, and political engagement. More importance should be placed on the politics of poverty—how political structures impact poverty alleviation efforts.2. Greater emphasis should be placed on poverty alleviation solutions and informed advocacy—how students can make a difference. Students needed to learn how to engage the political system to make structural change.3. The students desired more guidance and assistance from both the instructor and administrators of QOPC regarding the research project, and the project had to be more clearly defined. The instructor should be more involved in the design and conduct of the research project. The administrators at QOPC needed to interact more directly with the students to ensure high-quality research and data collection.



4. The students requested greater, more direct, and earlier interaction with the QOPC clients.27

5. All parties agreed there needed to be increased collaboration and communication among the students, the instructor, and the administrators at QOPC. In the words of one student, “This course has tons of potential. Please keep it going. I enjoyed going every week. Having said that, there is room for improvement.” The students overwhelmingly thought their experience working with QOPC helped them to better understand the structural causes of poverty (14 of 16 students), and a majority believed this experience was the main strength of the course (9 of 16 students). Students described this service experience as “rewarding” and “priceless.” They echoed three primary reasons: (1) the value of experiential, hands-on learning—directly applying what they learn in the classroom to “real-life” experiences; (2) the ability to make the course material “real” and “personal”—“QOPC put a face on poverty”; and (3) the ability to identify problems in their own local communities. Two other findings were significant. First, the students felt they gained the most useful knowledge about existing public policies—the problems created by them and the gaps in them—from the clients and administrators at QOPC. Second, the students were often frustrated because they recognized how difficult it is to bring about social change. Overall, the assessment revealed that the service-learning component enhanced student learning and understanding of the course material. However, most students failed to make the connection between their community service project and political engagement.



Course RevisionsBased on this initial assessment, substantial revisions were

made in the course content and service component when offered again in fall 2008. These revisions are outlined below.

1. Revised Course Content—To increase the connections between course readings, the service project, and political engagement, I completely revised the course content and reading list to focus more explicitly on the politics of poverty. While the poverty discourse in the U.S. is largely apolitical and focuses on individual rather than structural causes, the primary goal of this course is for students to understand that poverty is a political concept because it involves the exercise of power and focuses on the issue of resource distribution.28

As such, the first third of the revised course focuses specifically on the relationship between politics and poverty. Who gets what in society reflects a nation’s political values and political competition over the distribution of societal resources. In this section, the following areas are covered: (a) a comparison of Western welfare states, their underlying ideologies, and their different conceptions of citizenship; (b) non-Western views of justice and poverty and differences within the Christian tradition; (c) the legacy of New Deal reforms on U.S. social welfare policy and the politics behind these policies; (d) the evolution of a social welfare policy in the U.S. and how public policy changes reflect shifting values; and (e) the 2008 presidential campaign and the candidates’ global and national poverty alleviation strategies. I also incorporated into class an abbreviated version of the Oxfam Hunger Banquet event, to emphasize the vast



difference in degree between global and local poverty—how resources are distributed throughout the world. The second section of the course addresses the economic, political, and structural causes of poverty in the U.S. and around the globe. This section also focuses on how these same structures shape the possibilities for poverty alleviation initiatives. At the national level, the following causal factors are examined: global economic transformations and the resulting structural dislocations, gender inequality and the feminization of poverty, racial inequality and the wealth gap, and the intersection of social class and lack of human capital. At the global level, the theoretical arguments examined focus on the globalization of the international economy, the role of international economic institutions, and the impact of domestic political institutions.

The final section of the course focuses on poverty alleviation strategies and the role that active, engaged citizens can play. Topics covered include the role of foreign aid, microfinancing programs, asset-building approaches, the role of multinational corporations, and the increased relevance of transnational advocacy networks in an increasingly global world. To make the readings more connected with the service project, I specifically related the structural causes of poverty in the U.S. to the problems experienced by the clients of QOPC. I also tried to put a human face on poverty by including readings about poverty in the local St. Louis Metropolitan area—stories with personal relevance for my students.

2. Increased Emphasis on Poverty Alleviation Strategies and Informed Advocacy—To expand the focus on existing macro- and micro-level poverty alleviation strategies and programs, I invited several guest lecturers involved in poverty alleviation programs to speak to the class. These speakers instructed



students on alternative poverty alleviation strategies, shared their stories of how they got involved in this issue area, and imparted how they themselves had become informed advocates. I asked Sister Tony Temporiti, founder of Microfinancing Partners in Africa (MPA), to speak about the collaboration of MPA with Jamii Bora, a microfinance organization in Kenya that provides services similar to Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. I invited two faculty members from the School of Social Work, Julie Birkenmaier and Jami Curley, to speak about their work with and research on Asset-Building Programs, particularly Individual Development Accounts (IDAs), at the national, local, and global levels (SEED Foundation in Uganda). Finally, QOPC invited the director and three other organizers from the Rebecca Project to speak to the class. The Rebecca Project, headquartered in Washington, D.C., is a national policy advocacy organization for families struggling with poverty, substance abuse, and the criminal justice system. It trains low-income mothers in recovery who have also had interaction with the criminal justice and child welfare system to become community leaders and policy advocates. The course final exam also now focuses on developing poverty reduction policy proposals and potential strategies to implement their reforms.3. New Research Project—To address the problems identified in the assessment regarding the research service project, a new, more structured research project was created, designed to engage students with the political system. The students conduct individual research projects on one of five issue areas in which QOPC would like to further expand the services offered to its clients: housing, mental health,



domestic violence, child welfare, or the criminal justice system.29 Within their issue area, students focus on a specific policy issue related to poverty. The requirements for the project include conducting a needs assessment, evaluating current public policy, and formulating a policy response that reflects an understanding of the policy process. As part of the project, students are required to conduct interviews with a client of QOPC, a local community provider (St. Louis Housing Commission or a local homeless shelter), and a local stakeholder (state representative or policy advocacy group). The client interview is designed to provide personal interaction with a client of QOPC and help students identify their research interests based on the personal experiences of the client. The provider interview is intended to help students identify existing services offered in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area. Finally, the stakeholder interview is meant to assist students evaluate current public policies, learn of alternative policy recommendations, and identify key stakeholders related to their policy issues. Students are also required to attend two field educational experiences related to their topics, e.g., if housing, attend a Shelter Plus Care hearing (transitional housing screening hearing). The field experiences are designed to allow students to experience the trials and tribulations experienced by clients when they engage with a disconnected and inadequate social services network. The primary goal of the research projects is for students to conduct research and collect data that QOPC could use in future grant applications. The administrators at QOPC encourage students to meet with them to discuss their research topics and discuss problems they encountered over the course of the semester.



4. Greater interaction with the clients of QOPC—Because the students requested greater, more direct, and earlier interaction with the clients of QOPC, I incorporated several additional experiences into the course. As a class, we visited QOPC the second class session for a tour of the center and an orientation from the administrators. The orientation covered the services offered by QOPC, how the problems faced by its clients intersect with poverty, and an overview of the research project. Second, students conducted their one-on-one client interviews during the fifth class session. This provided them with personal interaction with the clients early in the semester and was designed to help them focus in on their research topic. During the fifth week of the course, as a class we again visited QOPC and joined its clients in viewing a performance by a local organization called Let’s Start. This organization assists women in transition from prison life to society. It is run by women who themselves have been through the criminal justice system, and who now help others through advocacy, education, and sharing their personal experiences. Lastly, two clients from QOPC came to speak to the class about their life stories and how chemical addiction and poverty ran through their lives. Students were also given the opportunity to serve at QOPC or visit the center outside of these structured activities.5. Increased Communication—In response to the 2007 course assessment, I worked closely with the administrators from QOPC throughout the course of the semester to evaluate the direction of the research projects and gain feedback. Together, we developed the content of the research project and collaborated on the interview guideline questions. The administrators now make themselves available throughout



the semester to discuss the students’ research projects and offer assistance. This assistance focuses on narrowing their research topics and identifying community agencies and stakeholders for their required interviews. The overall goal of these course revisions is to help students see more clearly the connections between their community service and political engagement. The revised research project is designed to become a vehicle for students to connect with the political system. The goal is for students to become informed advocates in their issue area and learn how to bring about social change.

Evaluating the CourseMy preliminary assessment of the course is based on student

course evaluations and an analysis of their written work.30 While somewhat different conclusions can be drawn from the two assessment tools, both provide valuable insights into the student learning experience and its success in promoting political engagement. Using midterm and final exams to evaluate student knowledge and understanding of the course material, the students greatly increased their knowledge of the issue area, were able to critically evaluate alternative theories, and developed sufficient knowledge and skills to devise their own policy proposals. Prior to the course, many students admitted in reflection papers that they had little to no knowledge of the structural causes of poverty. By the end of the semester, they not only felt informed, but believed that they had sufficient knowledge to inform others regarding the issue area. According to one student, “The experience helped me see how the structures we learned about are actualized in the St. Louis community.” Another stated, “It is really important to have hands-on



activity that lets students use the information they have learned in a real-world setting.” Through their experiences at QOPC, students also gained firsthand knowledge of how public policies impacted individual people. Most significantly, they experienced how disconnected the U.S. social welfare system is and the obstacles that people face in trying to access the system. As one claimed, “Experiencing testimonials of victims who have suffered from poverty while learning about the structural causes of poverty made the subject matter more concrete.”

The service-learning component also helped students connect their academic coursework with their future career paths. One student wrote, “The service that we did through our research had a bigger impact. I found a way to help others by using the skills that I have developed over the past few years I’ve spent at SLU; it gave me an idea as to how I can focus my career to help others.” The class inspired students to become engaged by adding a personal dimension to an abstract policy problem. One wrote, “Hearing their stories gives motivation and also greater insight.” Another, “Never underestimate the power of personal testimony.” Another simply said, “I can safely say the research project has been the most challenging, yet most rewarding, project I have done at SLU. It also helped students to develop the skills necessary to become engaged citizens. By completing the project, my research skills were improved as was my ability to communicate effectively with representatives and top officials of various organizations.”

Finally, the course showed students how to channel their activism into political engagement. The research project helped students see that they had an alternative to volunteerism if they wanted to make a difference in the world. They could actually try to advocate for policy change. To some, it came as a surprise to think about trying to actually engage the political system. One of these



surprised students explained, “The most impressive thing, to me, is that this course actually forces students to not just look at the causes of poverty and the flaws in the system, but to also think of a way to change it. It forces us to step outside of the comfort zone of learning and understanding an issue and pushes us into a realm where we have to think about changing it. The course is almost empowering in that way, in that students have to be more than just students. They have to be political actors. They have to give an effort to make changes.”

Suggestion for the FutureBased on student feedback, my evaluation of their work, and my own experience, the following suggestions could address the problems experienced in the course:1. Streamline the research projects to focus on three or four student group projects or focus on one large class research project.2. Work with two partner agencies for the student research projects—one that focuses on global poverty and one that focuses on local poverty.3. Divide the course into two separate, sequential courses. The first would focus on poverty in the U.S, the second on global poverty. The most significant problem experienced in the course was the size of the research project. This can be easily addressed by adopting the first recommendation. Other student suggestions will also be incorporated when the course isnext offered—greater interaction with the clients of QOPC and increased emphasis on the global dimension of the course. I am also exploring the possibility of partnering with Microfinancing Partners for Africa. Given departmental resource constraints, the third alternative is not a viable solution at this time. However, for other



faculty interested in developing a similar service learning course that would focus solely on domestic poverty, this could provide even more opportunities to foster student political engagement Many students at Saint Louis University want to be engaged in the world in which they live. True to our mission statement, they want to become “effective leaders of social change.” As a former student and the founder of One World wrote: “The democratic nature of the U.S. relies on the decisions of its citizens to determine the outcome of our political choices. . . . Especially, at a Jesuit university that strives to be ‘men and women for others,’ we not only have the capacity, we have the moral responsibility to take advantage of our democratic power to be the voice for the voiceless.”

While civic engagement programs across U.S. college campuses have been successful in engaging students in service, they have been less successful in promoting political engagement. However, community service can lead to political engagement, but it is our job as political scientists to help students make connections between the two. It is our duty and responsibility to provide students with the knowledge, skills, and tools needed to become informed advocates. Service learning courses are one pedagogical tool that can be used to accomplish this. In making these connections, students understand how they can engage the political system to increase the efficacy of their actions. Moreover, students want to engage the political system in order to make policy changes and work toward alleviating poverty. Simply put, they become advocates.

Notes1Thomas Patterson, The Vanishing Voter: Public Involvement in the Age of Uncertainty(Cambridge, MA: Alfred A. Knopf Publishers, 2002), 21.2Barbara Jacoby, “Civic Engagement in Today’s Higher Education” in Civic Engagement in Higher Education: Concepts and Practices, Barbara Jacoby and Associates, eds. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2009).3Stephen Macedo et al., Democracy at Risk: How Political Choices Undermine Citizen Participation, and What We Can



Do About It (Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2005), 6.4Anne Colby et al., Educating for Democracy: Preparing Undergraduates for Responsible Political Engagement (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2007). See also, Steven Lawry, Daniel Laurison, and Jonathan VanAntwerpen, “Liberal Education and Civic Engagement” (New York: Ford Foundation’s Knowledge, Creativity and Freedom Program, 2006), http://www.fordfound.org/pdfs/impact /liberal_education_and_civic_engagement.pdf and Tobi Walker, “The Service/Politics Split: Rethinking Service to Teach Political Engagement,” PS: Political Science and Politics 33, no. 3(2002): 646–649.5William Galston, “Civic Knowledge, Civic Education, and Civic Engagement: A Summary of Recent Research” in Constructing Civic Virtue: A Symposium on the State of American Citizenship (Syracuse: Campbell Public Affairs Institute, 2003). See also Linda J. Sax, Alexander W. Astin, William S. Korn, and Kathryn M. Mahoney, “The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2003” (Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, 2003).6Nicholas Longo and Ross Meyer, “College Students Talk Politics: Revisiting and Reviewing the Literature,” CIRCLE Working Paper 46 (College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, 2006), http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/ WorkingPapers/WP46LongoMeyer.pdf.7Scott Keeter, Cliff Zukin, Molly Andolina, and Krista Jenkins, The Civic and Political Health of the Nation: A Generational Portrait (College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, 2002), http://www.civicyouth.org/research/products/ Civic_Political_Health.pdf. See also Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000) and Ruy Teixeira, The Disappearing American Voter (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute, 1992).8National Association of Secretaries of State, The New Millennium Project: American Youth Attitudes on Politics, Citizenship, Government, and Voting (Washington, DC: National Association of Secretaries of State, 1999), 1, http://nass.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view& id=132&Itemid=298.9Carol Hays, “Alienation, Engagement, and the College Student” in Engaging The Public: How Government and the Media Can Reinvigorate American Democracy, Thomas Johnson, Carol E. Hays, and Scott Hays, eds. (Lantham, MD: Roman and Littlefield Publishers, 1998), 45.10Harry Boyte, Everyday Politics: Reconnecting Citizens and Public Life (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2004). See also, Cynthia Gibson, “From Inspiration to Participation: A Review of Perspectives on Youth Civic Engagement” (New York: Carnegie Corporation, 2001) and Alex Kellogg, “Looking Inward: Freshman Care Less About Politics and More About Money,” Chronicle of Higher Education 47 (2001): A47–A50.11Mark Hugo Lopez, “Volunteering Among Young People” (College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, 2004). See also Linda Sax, “Citizenship Development and the American College Spirit,” in Civic Responsibility and Higher Education, Thomas Ehrlich, ed. (Phoenix: Oryx Press, 2000).12The Institute of Politics at Harvard University, “Attitudes Toward Political and Public Service: A National Survey of College Undergraduates” (Cambridge: Harvard University, 2002).13Sax, “Citizenship Development and the American College Spirit,” 15.14Walker, “The Service/Politics Split,” 647.15Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).16Lawry et al., Liberal Education and Civic Engagement, 29.17Mark Hugo Lopez, Peter Levine, Deborah Both, Abby Kiesa, Emily Kirby, and Karlo Marcelo, The 2006 Civic and Political Health of the Nation: A Detailed Look at How Youth Participate in Politics and Communities (College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, 2006), http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/2006_CPHS_Report_update.pdf. See also, Richard Neimi and Michael Hammer, College Students in the 2004 Election (College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, 2004).18Abby Kiesa et al., Millennials Talk Politics: A Study of College Student Political Engagement (College Park, MD: The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, 2007), http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/CSTP.pdf.19Jonathan Tisch, “Turnout by Education, Race and Gender and Other 2008 Youth Voting Statistics” (College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, 2008).20Kiesa, et al., Millennials Talk Politics.21Generation X includes those people born between 1965–1985. The Millennial Generation includes those people born after 1985.22Benjamin R. Barber and Richard M. Battistoni, “A Season of Service: Introducing Service Learning into the Liberal Arts Curriculum,” PS: Political Science & Politics 26, no. 2 (1993), 235–40. See also, Richard M. Battistoni and William E. Hudson, eds., Experiencing Citizenship: Concepts and Models for Service-Learning in Political Science (Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education, 1997); Thomas Ehrlich, “Civic Education: LessonsLearned,” PS: Political Science And Politics 32, no. 2 (1999), 245–250; and Janet Eyler and Dwight Giles, Where’s the Learning in Service-Learning? (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1999).23This course was initially offered in the fall of 2007 and taught by Fr. Richard Quirk, an adjunct professor in the Department of Political Science and former executive director of the Catholic Commission on Housing in St. Louis. I taught the course when it was offered again in the fall of 2008.


http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/2006_CPHS_Report_update.pdf

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/

http://www.fordfound.org/pdfs/impact


24Other faculty members involved in the initial development of this course included Dr. Wynne Moskop, Chair, Department of Political Science; Dr. Ellen Carnaghan, Professor of Political Science, Fr. Richard Quirk, Adjunct Instructor of Political Science; Dr. Robert Cropf, Chair, Department of Public Policy; Dr. Richard Colignon, Chair, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice; Dr. Mary Domahidy, Associate Professor in Public Policy; and myself.The two students who initiated this project were Nima Sheth and Amanda Ring-Rissler. Administrators from Queen of Peace Center involved in the development of the service-learning component of the course included Connie Neumann, Executive Director; Azhar Hakim, Director of Operations; and Will Hildebrandt, Grant and Quality Manager.25Faculty members currently involved from the School of Social Work include Dr. Julie Birkenmaier,Associate Professor and Director of Field Education, and Dr. Jami Curley, Assistant Professor.26While the local component of this course focuses on urban poverty in the U.S., the course readings and service-learning project can be tailored to meet the needs of institutions of higher education located in areas with different demographics. Our research project was designed to reflect the needs of our local community. SLU’s campus is located in the City of St. Louis, in which 23 percent of the city’s population lives below the poverty line.27Due to the approaching deadline for submitting the AFI grant proposal, students completed the research project before the needs assessment interviews. As a result, students did not have direct interaction with the clients of QOPC until the second half of the semester.28Michael Katz, The Undeserving Poor: From the War on Poverty to the War on Welfare (New York: Pantheon Books, 1989).29In the fall of 2008, administrators from QOPC involved in course development and oversight included Azhar Hakim, Director of Operations, and Lara Pennington, Grants and LeadershipAssociate.30The requirements for this course were a take-home essay midterm exam (20%), three interviews for the research project (15%), class participation (10%), a take-home essay final exam (20%), the final research project (30%), and course evaluation and reflection (5%).



Essay 6

INTERACTIVE LESSON PLANS FOR AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: A POLITICAL SCIENCE INSTRUCTOR’S CHALLENGEDeanne RepettoFolsom Lake College/El Dorado Center“The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates.The great teacher inspires.”–William Arthur Ward1



It’s not enough to simply explain a topic in an American Government course; the challenge is to inspire. And where would democracy be without a measure of inspiration? Indeed, our American system of government was designed to include and depend on citizen participation. The American Government course offers an outstanding opportunity to provide the knowledge, stimulate the interest, and inspire the motivation for active involvement in our government. The question remains: How can an instructor cover the required course material and simultaneously inspire students to participate? The answer includes innovative and interactive instruction through group projects, class discussions, debates, demonstrations, student presentations, and participatory simulations. Today’s college students require a variety of teaching methods to address their diverse backgrounds, academic levels, and ages. Increasing fees and widespread reductions in education funding force instructors to remain focused on strategies for student retention. Improved access to the Internet and the potential for student plagiarism places greater demands on instructors’ time. In addition to these responsibilities, instructors need time to prepare for class, grade assignments, and fulfill the variety of academic responsibilities required by their institutions. While desirable, the extra burden of curriculum creativity can easily be discarded as a nonessential luxury. Yet the benefits demonstrated by innovative, interactive learning obligate the “great” teacher to pursue and explore the available options. The League for Innovation, in collaboration with the National Science Foundation and the WGBH Educational Foundation, field-tested a series of faculty development resource modules on campuses throughout the country. In her abstract on the resource program, titled “Getting Results,” Kay M. McClenney reports that faculty throughout the country are “eager to move away from ‘chalk and talk’ teaching to try new ways of



engaging their students.” McClenney reports that faculty members emphasized a need for “alternative teaching strategies that can be effectively employed in theory-based and typically lecture-intensive classes, particularly in the liberal arts and sciences.”

They express a desire for “help in engaging students,” particularly in developing effective group work lessons.2 Cooperative learning, group work, and active learning have long been utilized in other disciplines. What would a philosophy class be without classic group discussions? Reading the role of a Shakespeare character is common in English courses. Even chemistry professors have met with success using Guided Inquiry Learning and group work lessons. Their interactive courses result in decreased attrition and increased average scores.3 Many have found that these types of interactive classroom lessons can engage, educate, and motivate students more successfully than traditional lecture delivery methods. As demonstrated in chemistry courses, interactive instruction also helps professors with their role in student retention. Students who participate in interactive learning and make acquaintances in class are more likely to remain enrolled. Additionally, the American Government course typically serves as an introduction to college-level work for many students. Conducting an interesting course that engages and inspires learners through interactive instruction increases the likelihood that students will continue to enroll in courses in the field. Finally, in his workshops on creating plagiarism-proof writing assignments, Professor Daniel Melzer recommends including specific components, personal responses, memos, and peer reviews in written assignments.4 The style of most interactive lessons allows for simple and specific variations, and Melzer’s suggestions easily lend themselves to the types of writing assignments that reduce the problems of plagiarism. By providing opportunities to practice active participation in class, the professor models the goal for later



participation in the political system. Once an instructor has decided to incorporate active learning into the curriculum, he or she must follow several important steps toward successful implementation of interactive lessons:

1. Maintain a flexible approach and broad expectations. First and foremost, instructors must approach the process with a measure of patience and flexibility. Unlike traditional lecture methods, there are no completely predictable outcomes in active learning. Each group, in each section and in each semester may perform differently, resulting in different outcomes. Some professors may find this lack of control uncomfortable, and for them, it will require a conscious effort to maintain a flexible approach.2. Set aside dedicated time to ensure effective incorporation of appropriate activities. Both preparation and course time are needed to successfully complete the activity. Implementation time will depend on the course material, number of students, academic levels, and level ofparticipation in the discussion.3. Establish goals or student learning outcomes for each activity prior to implementation. Decide what you want students to know and the level of participation you expect. These goals will be helpful when it comes time to establish assessment criteria. Goals can include anything from “developing a deeper understanding of the legislative process” to simply “increasing communication between students” or “fostering a non-threatening open discussion environment.”4. Determine specific criteria for grading students and evaluating the effectiveness of the activity. It is important to clearly explain your criteria to students prior to the activity.



Academics recommend avoiding “group grade phobia” by informing students that their grades will be based on individual performance. In his 1995 article, “Group Grades Miss the Mark,” Kagan presents a list of reasons why “undifferentiated group grades for group projects are inherently unfair and unwise.”5 Some activities, however, lend themselves well to written follow-up assignments or research that can be used for individual grading. Other activities may be more effective if they are not graded.5. Set rules for engaging in interactive lessons and class discussion. Many instructors include information on their syllabi regarding college and classroom rules for discussion. Some common guidelines specify respectful behavior when others are speaking, prohibit the use of foul or derogatory language, and encourage recognition and appreciation for diverse views. Stating these, and any other rules prior to engaging in an interactive lesson or discussion, can alleviate a multitude of potential problems. Students often get caught up in the discussion and allow their emotions to override judgment. While this kind of emotional involvement demonstrates inspiration and motivation, it is critical for the instructor to maintain the role of moderator and enforce the established rules. It is often helpful to turn an emotional debate into a “teaching moment” and discuss with students their options or pathways to implement changes that would support their position.6. Plan activities to include four stages of implementation. In order to gain the maximum amount of educational value from interactive lessons, instructors should follow four stages of implementation:

a. Information Stage: Students will need basic course



material in the subject area to be able to effectively participate in most activities. This can be delivered lecture style, through assigned reading, or as a previous interactive lesson.b. Interaction Stage: The instructor must be prepared with the materials, worksheets, and information necessary to complete the activity.c. Interpretation Stage: Discuss what was learned and openly evaluate the effectiveness of the activity; this can also involve suggestions for improvement.d. Implementation Stage: Help students make the connection between the lessons learned from the activity and real-life opportunities to participate in the political process.

7. Develop methods for establishing groups for different types of activities. If the activity involves debate or discussion, diversity in the group is essential. If the activity requires compromise or significant agreement on technique, then groups should be more homogeneous. Factors to consider include varying gender, age, academic level, ethnicity, and ideology within the group. One suggested method is to begin by developing a list of students in the order of their current course grade, and then assign groups by going down the list. Each group should end up with a balanced number of high and low achievers. In their book on collaborative learning techniques, Barkley et al. recommend assigning roles to group members: “A specific role gives each student a purpose for participating within the group and ensures that various aspects of a learning task are addressed.”6 Examples include a group facilitator, recorder, reporter, timekeeper or taskmaster, as well as a challenger



or skeptic. Following are nine sample interactive lessons for an Introduction to American Government course. For the first two of these lessons, I have provided specifics on the purpose of the activities, preparation details, step-by-step procedures for implementation, and recommendations for post-activity discussions and evaluation. Although suggestions are provided, in order to ensure basic understanding, you will need to supply specific course information prior to the activity (Information Stage). You also may need to provide follow-up discussions on methods of applying simulations to real-world activities (Implementation Stage). These suggested lessons are neither comprehensive

nor set in stone. Remember, flexibility is the primary key for successfully unlocking the benefits of interactive lessons and group work! These activities are adaptable to a variety of subject areas. By changing the specifics, you can use the lessons more than once with the same group of students. (For example, the TV game show Jeopardy! can be used as a review for all exams during the semester if the answers are changed to reflect the desired subject area.)1. Orientation: “Interview-Introduction”—See Activity Details below.2. Executive: “Ideal President”—See Activity Details below.3. Judicial: “Constitution Quest”—Each team is given a unique question and a series of clues to guide them through research and constitutional cases, leading them to a final answer. Teams share their process and speculate answers as they progress.4. Legislative: “Simulated Congressional Committee Hearing”—Teams develop legislation and then role-play committee members, author, and testifiers at a mock



hearing.5. Budget: “Compromise and Conquer”—Teams develop lists of ten federal spending priorities and then work together to narrow the list to three.6. Campaigns: “The Candidate Client”—Teams role-play campaign consulting firms and evaluate fictional U.S. Senate candidates, then develop and present a campaign plan to get their client elected. The class votes for the most successful.7. State: “Travel Trivia”—Each student receives a strip of colored paper with a trivia tidbit about state government written on it. They “travel” around the room sharing their trivia until all those with the same color paper group together into a team. Teams must determine what category their trivia fits into, select the most important tidbit to share with the class, and then add one of their own.8. Comprehensive: “Pass the Problem”—(Can be used for any subject matter) Teams write questions on the front of index cards (one minute). Then cards are passed to different teams that write answers on the back (two minutes). Cards are passed a third time for teams to verify answers (three minutes). Correct cards are collected for team points. Can be repeated several times.9. Exam Reviews: “Jeopardy!”—There are several versions of this popular TV game show available online that allows you to design your own categories, questions, and point values. Some even include the theme song! Although most in the field would agree that political science is a dynamic and fascinating subject, keeping students interested in government remains a constant challenge for instructors. Innovative curriculum that involves interactive learning in a non-threatening environment provides a way of inspiring and



motivating students to become active members of society. Providing opportunities for moderated interaction supports the educational goal of stronger understanding. It confronts the challenge of inspiring students, creating educated voters and active citizens. Inspiration comes from the emotional response to active participation. Students become so involved in the activity that they forget they are learning. Participation in simulations and group activities encourages greater effort, increases enthusiasm and stimulates creativity. As “great teachers” we can develop and enhance creative instruction that will help to ensure the academic success of our inspired students and the future of our discipline.

Activity DetailsI. ORIENTATION: INTERVIEW-INTRODUCTION ACTIVITY

Purpose/Rationale To provide each student in the course with a non-

threatening opportunity to speak in front of the class. Providing a neutral topic can make the public speaking experience less stressful. Having students speak on the first day provides practice and models the discussion you will encourage throughout the semester.

To ensure that every student personally meets at least one other student enrolled in the course. This will ensure that every student has at least one contact for notes during an absence. Knowing other students enrolled in the course



can also increase retention rates. To allow students to learn about others taking the class

and foster a classroom environment of collegiality and open discussion. They will be together for an entire semester and it is important to establish an open environment and the guidelines for exchange and interaction as soon as possible.

To collect information on student backgrounds, experience, and course expectations. This can provide you with valuable information to use when adapting your syllabus, assigning groups, focusing lecture material, and designing evaluation methods.

To break up first-day “information overload” from the instructor, and allow students to interact on the first day so that they look forward to returning. Conducting this activity models the interaction, speaking, note-taking, and collegial respect that will be expected during the course. Students are often overwhelmed with details on the course syllabus and outlines on the first day. Finishing the first day with a fun, non-graded activity where students meet each other fosters a feeling of belonging. Students leave class smiling and chatting, instead of complaining about the work ahead.

PreparationYou will need notepaper, and enough index cards for all

students. You will need to prepare an overhead, PowerPoint, or white board with a list of the student information you are requesting.



Procedure1. Once you have completed the course introduction and opening remarks, and have reviewed your syllabus, explain to students that you are going to give them an opportunity to speak and begin the interactive learning that will continue throughout the semester.2. Explain that before you begin the activity you’d like to get some information. It may be necessary for you to contact students during the semester, and you might adjust your syllabus depending on the information you collect from them (their experience, education, and expectations).3. Pass out the index cards, display the list of information you would like students to write on the card, and ask them to provide as much of the information as they are comfortable sharing. (Examples: current semester/date, name, address, e-mail, cell phone number, major oreducational goals, current employment, career goal, any previous courses or experience in this field, reason for enrolling in the course, course expectations, expected grade, etc.)4. Collect cards. You will have time to skim them while students are conducting interviews.5. Ask students to take out a blank piece of paper and something with which to write. Explain that the activity has three steps, and you will explain them all before they begin.6. Explain these steps/tasks:

a. “Your first task is to find someone in the class you did not know when you walked in here.”b. “Your second task is to interview that person. You will have five to conduct your interview.”



c. “Your third task is to introduce your new friend to the class. Questions?”7. Direct students to find their partner. This may take guidance to ensure that every student has a partner. If there are an uneven number of students, you can have a group of three interview each other. They may need to move chairs or exchange seats.8. Once students are paired, tell them they have 10 minutes to conduct their interviews and you will remind them to switch roles after five minutes. Ask students to suggest questions they might ask. (The obvious ones should come up: Name? Major? Why they enrolled in the class? Age? Family? Pets? Hobbies? Favorite Music?) Guide them toward other interesting, unusual questions: If you could live/travel anywhere, where would you go? If you had three wishes, what would they be? Some may come up with political or personal questions. While these are often harmless and informative, be sure to announce that students can “opt out” or “pass” on a question they are uncomfortable answering. Begin the timer and remind them to take notes. After five minutes, remind them to switch roles, and give them a one-minute warning before the time is up.9. Ask students to look through the notes they took during their interview and select the two or three (or five, depending on your time allowance) most important pieces of information that they would like to tell the class about “their new friend.” Begin at one end of the class and have students introduce each other in pairs. It is helpful to take a few notes during this time so you can point out common interests at the end of the activity. It is also critical that you moderate the presentations. Keep them focused, brief, and appropriate.



Depending on time available, you might ask a few additional questions to clarify.10. As each team finishes, you may find it helpful to thank them by repeating their names: “Thank you, Ashley and Jordan,” or “Thank you, Mr. Jones and Ms. Smith.”

Post-Activity Discussion/EvaluationOnce all students have been introduced, thank them for

participating and have them applaud each other for speaking in front of a group of strangers Explain that one of the goals of the activity is to allow them to learn about each other and foster an open environment for future class discussions and activities. (“Now that we all know each other, your fears of participating in class discussions should be minimal!”) You may want to point out some of the common interests that students reported. Explain that another goal is for them to meet at least one other person in the class they can contact for notes if they must be absent. Invite them to exchange any contact information they are comfortable sharing with their interview partner.

You may want to share information about yourself with students. Following the format, stick with just two or three pieces of information. Ask students to comment on the activity. Specifically, ask for things they did not like, then follow by asking for things they thought were positive. Take notes so you can make changes the next time you conduct the activity.

II. Executive Branch: The Ideal Presidential ActivityPurpose/Rationale

To provide an introduction and foster further discussion



on the executive branch. Discussing the characteristics, experience, ideology, and policy choices desirable in a presidential candidate stimulates interest in further discussion of the presidency. Topics may include: an evaluation of the success of historical, current and future executives; exploration of the power of the office and how different personalities have utilized that power; examination of the background, education, skills, and experience involved in the office; and detailed study of the responsibilities of the chief executive.

To provide students with an opportunity to identify the characteristics, issues, and experiences that are important to them when selecting a president. Identifying their priorities and defending their choices prepares students for the actual candidate selection process they will participate in as voters.

To allow students to practice the critical skill of persuasion. Selecting a candidate, defending their choices, and attempting to influence group members provides students with valuable practice at skills necessary for participating in the democratic process.

To demonstrate representative decision-making styles and stimulate further discussion of leadership styles. The spokesperson for each group serves as a representative and has a variety of options when reporting their group’s final choices. This autonomous decision-making allows the representative to follow the delegate or trustee models and provides students direct exposure to different leadership styles. This experience can lead to a more detailed discussion of executive styles.



PreparationYou will need copies of the attached “Ideal President” activity

sheet (enough for students and two blank extras for your use), and a place to record notes where students can view (overhead, white board, or easel).

Procedure1. Have students complete the attached “Ideal President” activity sheet individually. You may want to let students take it with them at the end of the previous class period so they have time to think about their answers. Explain that you will be doing an activity with the informationon the sheet, and that they will need to bring their completed sheet to the next class.2. After you have introduced the executive branch, and have provided an overview of the responsibilities of the president, explain that you will be doing an activity to design an “Ideal American President” to serve the next four years. Explain that this activity has three steps;and you will describe them all before you begin.3. Describe the steps:

a. “First, you will work in a group to determine your group’s ‘Ideal President.’ You will be required to defend your selections and attempt to persuade others in your group.”b. “Each group will then be asked to select a spokesperson to report on your group’s ‘Ideal President.’ Once the reporting process begins, the spokesperson will have the final say on the group’s contribution.”



c. “Finally, working together, we will develop a class model of the ‘Ideal President.’ Are there any questions?”

4. Divide students into groups of four or six, since an even number mandates compromise and ensures a minority voice. For this activity, it is often helpful to begin by asking students to identify themselves as closer to conservative or liberal. You can either assign groups with similar leanings, or have them self-select. Once in groups, allow them approximately 10 minutes to come up with their group’s ideal candidate and select a group spokesperson. Provide a two-minute warning.5. Once their time is up, display a blank copy of the activity sheet. Beginning with the first category “Statistical Information,” ask each spokesperson to share their group’s final choices. Then, continue the reporting process by category. If a group was not able to agree on a category, their spokesperson may choose not to contribute to the class model, or may report a selection of their choice. As you move through the categories, discuss the significance of each characteristic on presidential success.6. After you have completed the recording process, note the areas where the groups had the most agreement and disagreement. Explain that as the moderator, you will now attempt to combine the results into a single “class ideal.” Using a new blank activity sheet, fill in all results that were the same, or very close. You may need to broaden some answers to include as many reports as possible, or list some as “unknown.” Including as many reports as possible in the final makes students feel like they’ve contributed, and positively reinforces their participation in the process. Designing a less specific model to incorporate more group



reports demonstrates why a presidential candidate might choose to be vague in their policy proposals in order to include as many supporters as possible.

Examplesa. Instead of a specific age, list an age range that includes most of those reported by groups (e.g., “Most agree the ‘ideal’ is between 45 and 50”).b. Under “gender,” if there is not enough agreement on a preference, you can state, “Our ideal’s gender is unknown, and he or she shall be known as ‘Pat.’” (Though the reference to Saturday Night Live is often lost on young students!)c. To combine religions: “Something Christian,” or “Believes in a higher power.”d. Incorporate a few educational backgrounds by announcing that the “ideal” has an undergraduate degree in one major, and a graduate degree in another.e. Employment experience can be more inclusive if one of the jobs was during childhood (e.g., worked on parents’ farm), one was during college, and one was right after college, and so on.f. Claiming that the candidate “has served in a statewide elected office” can combine elected offices.g. When you have worked through the “class ideal” sheet, announce: “This is the ‘Ideal American President’ for the next four years.” Ask students: “Which of these characteristic choices are based specifically on the current political culture, and which would be standard regardless of the world or domestic political environment? Why?”



Post-Activity Discussion/Evaluation1. Explain the goals of the activity (introduce executive branch, identify personal priorities, practice persuasion, model representative decision- making, stimulate further discussion) and ask students to comment on their experience. “Were you able to express your position? How close were your choices to others in your group? How comfortable did you feel with your group’s final choice? Do you feel more prepared to evaluate and select an actual presidential candidate during the next election? What more do you want to know about the office and institution of the U.S. presidency?”2. To link the activity with a unit on campaigning, ask students the following: “Keeping in mind that your ideal president may not be an

ideal candidate, what would you change on your sheet to ensure that your ideal could be elected in today’s political environment? Why is there often conflict between our ideal, and an ‘electable’ candidate? Is our class ideal ‘electable’? Why or Why not?”3. Assessment for this activity can be based on a combination of the individually completed sheets and level of participation in the activity. A majority of the points (enough for a passing grade) would be based on attendance and completion of the activity sheet. Additional points would be given for serving as a spokesperson, for contributions to the group’s final selections, and to those whose sheets most closely resemble the class ideal.

Creating the Ideal President WorksheetWe often criticize our leaders for not having a certain kind of

experience, style, or personality. Exactly what kind of person do we



want our president to be? In addition to political considerations, what character traits and experiences do we look for in a presidential candidate? What characteristics do we consider desirable, or dangerous? If you know ahead of time what your ideal president would be like, you will have a basis to help you evaluate the candidates. Please complete the following form and be prepared to explain our reasons:

1. Statistical Information:Age______________________ Religion____________________________Gender___________________ Political Party _______________________Marital Status______________ Race_______________________________2. Educational Background (Circle One):Law Science Economics Religion Medicine Political Science Public Administration Engineering Education Business Philosophy Other____________________________________________3. Previous Employment Experience (Circle Three):Judge Congress Priest Sports Star Senator Doctor Laborer Businessperson Lawyer Mayor Entertainer Teacher Military Farmer Governor Real EstateOther____________________________________________4. Character Traits (Mark your top three):11.___ Very active worker who invests a great deal in his or her work.12.___ Passionate and emotional about the job.13.___ Displays a detached attitude.14.___ Ambitious, aggressive, and combative.15.___ Decision-making style is to consult with top aides in meetings.16.___ Prefers to study issues and work from briefs and written notes.17.___ Believes that in many situations, the end justifies the means.18.___ Strong self-image and high self-esteem.19.___ Believes that regardless of the situation, the president is



always subject to the law.10.___ Other:5. Policy Choices:Issues Candidate Supports: Issues Candidate Opposes:1. 1.2. 2.3. 3.6. Other requirements for your “Ideal President”:

Notes1Helen Exley, Thank Heavens For Teachers, Exley Giftbooks for Hallmark Cards, Inc., 2007, http://www.hallmark.com.2Kay M. McClenney, “Getting Results: Lessons on Strengthening Community College Teaching,” Learning Abstracts, vol. 10, no. 9, September 2007, League for Innovation in the Community College Web site, http://www.league.org/publication/learning/edition.cfm.3Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning Project at Franklin & Marshall College, with support from the National Science Foundation, “Effectiveness of POGIL,” 2004–2006, http://www.pogil.org.4Daniel L. Melzer, “Creating Plagiarism Proof Writing Assignments” (faculty workshop, California State University Sacramento, October 2006).5Spencer Kagan, “Group Grades Miss the Mark,” in Barbara Millis and Philip G. Cotell Jr., Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty (Phoenix: American Council on Education/ Oryx Press, 1988).6Elizabeth Barkley et al., Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005).



Essay 7

MAKING THE “A WORD” WORK FOR YOU: ASSESSMENT IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT Victoria A. Farrar-MyersUniversity of Texas at Arlington

Academia is increasingly being asked to be more accountable, and to



provide evidence that students are actually learning what they are supposed to be learning. The U.S. Department of Education, accrediting agencies, and policymakers have called upon academic institutions to identify educational goals and, specifically, to outline what an “ideal graduate” will know and be able to do. It behooves political scientists to start talking about our expectations for students once they have completed our courses and degree programs. Together, we need to provide evidence of students’ acquisition of knowledge that goes beyond the “I know it when I see it” predisposition.

Faculty members often consider assessment as antithetical to what they do. Further, to some instructors, incorporating assessment is viewed as requiring faculty to do significantly more work than they already must do in their demanding, content-rich courses. What is crucial to understand, however, is that assessment is fundamental to the mission of every faculty member. The key is to learn the reporting principles involved in assessment, how to make assessment understandable in the context of your own course, how to make assessment work for you, and how to use this evidence gathering to achieve and document teaching goals.

The introductory class in American Government (AG) may be the most important course in the political science curriculum in which to employ a well-designed approach to assessment. In many institutions, American Government is a core general education requirement for most undergraduate students; in some instances, it is a state mandate. Furthermore, it is the foundation course for political science majors and minors, and often a designated prerequisite for students to take upper-division political science classes. The course contains basic information that needs to be conveyed to and mastered by students; it also offers opportunities to promote key principles of citizenship, such as civic engagement, critical thinking, and



participation in the political process. Because AG courses play so many roles, the use of effective assessment techniques can provide support for the continued centrality of the course as both a general education requirement and the foundation of a political science degree program. Assessment techniques help document the successful attainment of basic political knowledge, and also serve to demonstrate the connection between the introductory course and more advanced courses. This latter item—referred to as course mapping—is the process of mapping out how each course contributes to desired programmatic outcomes. This path starts with the introductory class. In mapping out a political science degree program, for example, one might find that a number of assumptions are being made about certain courses (e.g., all students should learn about separation of powers in the introductory sequence so that these concepts do not need to be revisited in an upper-division course when discussing presidential-congressional relations).These assumptions could be further refined and retooled to fit more appropriately into the scheme of the overall desired program outcomes. A similar activity can take place within the context of general education courses to ensure that a required introductory course contributes to the overall general educational learning outcomes. This chapter starts with the beginning point of the mapping process, namely, learning how to develop effective approaches to assessment in intentionally designed introductory AG courses. Following are a series of necessary steps to conduct meaningful assessment in an introductory class:

Identify learning outcomes. Identify and implement assessment techniques (both

formative and summative).

Evaluate the costs and benefits of having a well-assessed,

intentionally. designed introductory course.



Learning OutcomesA learning outcome, simply put, is what we instructors desire our students to know and do once they have completed our course (i.e., the students’ knowledge, skills, and motivations). The key question to pose in designing an introductory course is, What do I want my students to know and be able to do as a direct result of their course experience? This question is not foreign to what we, as educators, think about as we design a course, but the phrasing of an answer is often difficult to articulate. We fall into the trap of stating that we want our students to “understand how to . . .” This articulation, though, often makes it harder to produce direct evidence that students have actually learned what was intended.

How do I go about crafting a learning outcome?A simple formula for crafting a learning outcome is: The student will be able to ______ in order to ______. Instructors should utilize action verbs in the “able to” segment and state clearly observable or measurable outcomes in the “in order to” segment. An example of a learning outcome that might not be useful is: A student completing this course will be able to understand the underlying principles of the Constitution and be able to analyze their significance to American government. This learning outcome has several shortcomings: What does “understand” mean? How will you know if your students do indeed learn what the principles are? If the students need to know the facts first and then be able to synthesize the information in order to conduct the analysis of the facts’ significance, then that would imply



several desirable learning outcomes.In order to make the above statement a more appropriately

phrased learning outcome, the professor might focus on something specific. For example: Students will be able to identify the key principles of ‘x.’ Phrasing the outcome in this way makes it more useful than the previous statement for several reasons. First, it states one desired outcome at a time. Second, it focuses on observable behavior to demonstrate mastery of the desired learning outcome. Third, it establishes a clear relationship between the students’ behavior and the intended outcome. As a result, the instructor will be in a better position to employ assessment techniques to measure whether students have obtained the desired knowledge.

What are appropriate learning outcomes?Instructors should specify two or three major learning outcomes

per course, although each might be further refined by breaking it into the components necessary to achieve the major learning outcome (as was shown above). Each outcome, however, needs to be connected to an intentionally designed learning activity or activities in order to demonstrate the students’ mastery of each desired outcome (to be discussed later). More critical, though, is ensuring that the “level” of the learning outcome is appropriate for the course at hand. When we discuss the level of a learning outcome, we are most often referring to the cognitive level of knowledge acquisition that students must achieve in order to properly master the course materials. Much research has been done in the areas of education and psychology to determine these levels of acquisition. The most famous is Benjamin Bloom’s classic taxonomy of the cognitive domain.1 Under Bloom’s original taxonomy, a person’s cognitive domain can be structured along six levels of thinking skills, from less to more complex:



1. Knowledge Recalling or recognizing information, ideas, and principles approximately in the form in which they were learned.2. Comprehension Translating, comprehending, or interpreting information based on prior learning.3. Application Selecting, transferring, and using data and principles in order to complete a problem or task with a minimum of direction.4. Analysis Distinguishing, classifying, and relating the assumptions, hypotheses, evidence, or structure of a statement or question.5. Synthesis Originating, integrating, and combining ideas into a product, plan, or proposal that is new to the individual.6. Evaluation An appraisal, assessment, or critique developed on the basis of specific standards and/or criteria.2 In the years since Bloom’s original taxonomy was developed, scholars have sought ways to refine and revise the taxonomy. Anderson and Krathwohl, for example, refined the categories within the cognitive process, but also added a dimension related to the type of knowledge to be learned.3 The following table illustrates this revised taxonomy and provides another tool in crafting clear learning outcomes.

Table 1. The Revised Taxonomy Table



QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Source: Anderson and Krathwohl; reproduced at http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/bloomrev/index.htm.

For our purposes in this chapter, we will use Bloom’s original taxonomy for illustrative purposes. However, variations on Bloom’s structure, such as the table above, can be used just as effectively for developing learning outcomes. Properly identifying the level on Bloom’s Taxonomy (or any applicable variation thereof) that we wish our students to achieve—or put another way, clearly articulating the kind of knowledge we want our students to acquire from our class—is essential to crafting good learning outcomes. In addition, one might argue that doing this will help the instructor to develop a course syllabus that reflects a logical progression by which desired learning outcomes are taught, reinforced, and achieved throughout the semester.

What are some examples of typical American Government learning outcomes?Typically, at the introductory level course, emphasis is placed at the knowledge, comprehension, and application levels on Bloom’s Taxonomy. The higher-order thinking skills of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation are often left to more fully develop in upper-division



courses. Keep in mind, however, that it may be difficult to aim at all levels of acquisition in the confines of one course.

Therefore, professors bear the burden of identifying the knowledge acquisition level(s) most appropriate for their courses. Identifying the desired levels will further clarify how a course is preparing students and laying the foundation for the next course within the degree program or within the core curriculum. With this in mind, consider the following possible learning outcomes for an introductory AG class. Students will be able to ____________:

Describe the role and powers of each branch of American government within the system of separation of powers and checks and balances.

Discuss the ways in which political parties and interest groups seek to influence elections.

Explain the difference between civil rights and civil liberties, citing examples of each.

Apply course content to the student’s experiences in a community service-learning project.4

Most introductory AG textbooks and courses adhere to the following structure: The Constitution and the American founding; political culture and core principles; political institutions; nongovernmental political actors; and public policy. Learning outcomes in introductory classes can be structured to integrate material over several chapters, or can be narrowed to cover a smaller subset of course materials. Further, in compiling a set of learning outcomes for any given course, the professor should strive to find a balance in the full range between knowledge-oriented outcomes (i.e., the lowest level on Bloom’s Taxonomy), such as “describe,” and application-oriented outcomes (i.e., the highest of the three levels typically found in introductory courses), such as “explain.”



Assessment TechniquesProfessors are accustomed to grading. We were all graded when we were students and all of us became responsible for grading as teaching assistants in graduate school. We now develop grading criteria for the courses we teach. Grading, however, should not be considered to be the same as assessment. Grades are often seen as being non-standardized and representing merely a snapshot of students’ achievement, not their actual learning. To properly assess whether a student has achieved the desired course learning outcomes, a more in-depth approach to assessment needs to be undertaken. To start, however, we must delve into the various kinds of assessment and the assessment techniques that can be most effectively used in an introductory AG course. Although the techniques discussed below can be incorporated in any class size or level, we will focus on the particular techniques that work best in a large lecture, based on the assumption that most introductory AG courses take place in a lecture-hall environment. Clearly, large lecture halls should not be viewed as a deterrent to utilizing effective and meaningful assessment techniques. Such techniques can, in fact, be employed effectively in any class setting.

What is meant by kinds of assessment?We must first understand the vocabulary of assessment, starting

with the difference between direct and indirect measures of learning outcomes. A direct measure references the level of achievement at which each student performs, both in terms of cognitive level (e.g., along Bloom’s level) and on a comparative basis (e.g., average, above



average, etc.). By comparison, an indirect measure of learning outcomes offers evidence that the intended learning outcomes may have been achieved, but it measures a behavior that is surrogate for the intended learning outcome. Suskie puts it another way: “Direct evidence of student learning is tangible, visible, self-explanatory evidence of exactly what students have and haven’t learned. . . . Indirect evidence, on the other hand, provides signs that students are probably learning, but the evidence of exactly what they are learning is less clear and less convincing.”5 Another set of key assessment vocabulary terms are formative and summative assessment. Formative, or interim assessment is done on an ongoing basis throughout the semester. Such assessment might be thought of as “temperature checks” to ensure that students are actually learning. For example, at the end of the class period, the professor might ask students to take out a sheet of paper and write down what they thought were the main points of that day’s lecture (referred to as a one-minute paper). The instructor also could ask them to write down whatever is unclear from that day’s lesson (referred to as a muddiest point paper). An increasingly popular form of formative or interim assessment is the use of innovative technology like personal response systems (also known as clickers), which allow professors to pose a question in class and get student responses instantly. Regardless of the technique chosen, each of these assessment strategies is designed to give the professor an incremental understanding of what students have learned. This process can often be eye-opening, allowing instructors to see what students actually take away from lectures and discussions. It also helps the professor determine what material needs to be revisited and what material can be rapidly covered, resulting in a more dynamic instructional environment.

Summative assessment, by comparison, utilizes exams and papers to measure the acquisition of students’ knowledge across the



whole course. Although tests and papers within the confines of the course are instructive, summative assessment is the final assessment of what the student has learned for the course. Again, merely knowing how many students passed or received certain grades are indirect measures, because we still have not obtained direct evidence of what the students’ performance means in terms of student learning. One summative assessment technique is to use embedded test questions repeated throughout the course. For example, knowledge surveys can be handed out on the first day of class to determine the students’ subject knowledge as they begin your course. Then, similar questions are included on the midterm and once more on the final exam. Analyzing performance across the semester using embedded questions can say a lot about what the students have learned. Additionally, using grading rubrics that measure the learning achieved as well as the level of acquisition of such knowledge can be a form of summative assessment that provides direct evidence of student learning. (Grading rubrics are discussed later in this chapter.)

Designing Learning Strategies to Achieve Desired Learning OutcomesNow that we have become familiar with the key vocabulary of assessment, we must put this vocabulary into practice. A few assessment techniques were mentioned earlier, but at this point you might be asking, what are some examples of actual assessments I might use? In other words, how can a professor design a class—both overall and on a daily basis—to employ techniques that will provide useful assessment data? In their book Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers, Thomas Angelo and Patricia Cross discuss various classroom assessment techniques that



can be used on an ongoing basis to gain formative assessment data and relevant feedback for further course enhancements. This information allows faculty to make midcourse adjustments to better address the needs of their students, instead of waiting until the end of the course to learn about problems and issues. Within the context of AG courses, instructors will want to use classroom assessment techniques that are simple to employ and take up minimal class time. Instructors should not feel compelled to treat these formative assessments as additional work for review. In fact, instructors might consider looking at a few examples of student feedback to gauge the level of student learning generally, instead of trying to read all student responses. Following are some techniques that satisfy these various goals and provide evidence of the students’ acquisition of course material.

One-Sentence Summary: “This simple technique challenges students to answer the questions, Who does what to whom, when, where, how, and why? (represented by the letters WDWWWWHW) about a given topic, and then to synthesize those answers into a single informative, grammatical, and long summary sentence.”6 This technique requires students to condense much information into a single coherent sentence. It allows the instructor to quickly assess whether the students comprehend the key ideas, while challenging students to do more than answer questions by rote. The technique may not work well with more complex concepts, but could be readily applied for learning outcomes on the lower levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (e.g., knowledge and comprehension).

Word Journal: “The Word Journal prompts a two-part response. First, the student summarizes a short text in a single word. Second, the student writes a paragraph or



two explaining why he or she chose that particular word to summarize the text. The completed response to the Word Journal is an abstract or a synopsis of the focus text.”7 The word journal supports learning outcomes geared to comprehension (since the students must be able to understand the reading passage well enough to translate it into a single word) and application (with each student defending the choice of the word she or he used). Word journals, however, may not work well in courses where only a textbook is used, or in classes where substantial discussion of the word journals cannot take

place. Accordingly, a professor may not wish to use a word journal in courses where the students meet only in a large lecture hall. However, in small classes (e.g., an honors seminar) or in discussion groups with teaching assistants, the use of word journals may lead to a more stimulating and engaging learning environment for the students.

Invented Dialogues: “By inventing dialogues, students synthesize their knowledge of issues, personalities, and historical periods into the form of a carefully structured, illustrative conversation.”8 Invented dialogues can be done either by weaving together actual quotations or allowing students to “invent reasonable quotes that fit the character of the speakers and the context” in a form of role-playing.9 This technique allows professors to assess how well the students understand and can convey “the theories, controversies, and the opinions of others,”10 and thus is well suited for learning outcomes on the middle levels on Bloom’s Taxonomy (i.e., application) and perhaps even higher. The above are only a few examples of assessment techniques that can be employed throughout a



semester. Available techniques can range in intensity: Low intensity: Includes pretest and posttest surveys to

assess, for example, ,students’ confidence in their ability to answer hypothetical questions in a list of course topics; a modified lecture that includes pausing during the lecture to allow discussion; and using guided lectures and

open-ended, student-generated questions.11

Medium intensity: Includes town hall discussions; think/pair/share (one-on-one discussions between students addressing questions asked by the instructor); small group discussions; and online exercises, use of e-communities and blogs.

High intensity: Includes simulations, role-playing, and service-learning options. To successfully employ one or more assessment technique in an introductory AG course, one has to balance many factors, such as how much time the instructor wants to dedicate to assessment, the tradeoff between the depth of acquisition of knowledge desired and the imperative to cover needed course content, the learning styles of the students, the instructor’s own comfort level with employing new techniques, and even the physical characteristics of the classroom. No two classes are the same, so instructors need to find technique(s) that work for them. Perhaps most importantly, though, some professors may need to move from a faculty-centered learning model to a learner-centered model. In the straight-lecture format, the instructor is at the heart of the student’s learning process because she or he is responsible for imparting information to the student. In the learner-centered model, however, the focus is on the students being an active part in their



own learning experiences. By employing this model, and techniques like those above, the instructor is more able to focus on measuring what the students have learned.

At this point, it will be useful to briefly discuss the use of introductory AG courses to foster student political engagement. Much of what instructors do is intentionally designing their courses to positively affect the development of the cognitive domain—that is, the area dealing with “content knowledge and the development of intellectual skills.”12 By promoting political engagement, professors are also seeking to advance affective outcomes (i.e., the way in which people deal with things emotionally) and behavioral outcomes (e.g., political involvement), in addition to cognitive outcomes. In designing the learning experience associated with cognitive learning outcomes, educators can also work on the affective and behavioral domains related to political engagement through such means as simulations, service-learning components, campaign work, or issue analysis. What is important, though, is that all three purposes work seamlessly together within the course content of a class, thereby enabling students to experience the connections among all three domains. Pretests and posttests are very effective assessment tools in measuring student political engagement. For example, each year the Cooperative Institutional Research Program at the Higher Educational Research Institute at UCLA conducts a national survey of college freshmen that includes questions on political engagement. Professors could adapt this survey for use in their classes to assess the engagement of their students and to assess changes in engagement across their course. They could use a survey to compare their students against national norms and to examine generational differences.13 Keep in mind, however, that while political engagement is a desirable outcome, especially in required courses, student engagement in the class (including time on task, attendance, and



emotive approach) can also play a factor in developing a sense of civic engagement. Simple self-reflection questionnaires can be designed to assess these issues and how they may affect the cognitive and affective development of the student.

What is an Example of a Rubric and How Do I Create One?The in-class assessment techniques discussed above allow instructors to determine the level of student learning and the students’ acquisition of knowledge throughout the semester, with the additional benefit of providing professors with information that allows them to make in-course adjustments. At the end of the day, however, professors do need to evaluate each student’s performance on assignments and in the course overall. The process of grading, however, can be the vehicle that provides such evidence of student learning and helps the instructor to judge each student’s performance. For example, when grading any material, most professors have established certain schema or criteria. For example, an “A” paper or exam would address certain components that a “B” would not, and so forth. Essentially, in doing this, instructors have created for themselves the beginnings of an assessment rubric. A rubric “articulates in writing the various criteria and standards that a faculty member uses to evaluate student work. It translates informed professional judgment into number ratings on a scale . . . that . . . can now be communicated and compared.”14 A well-designed assessment rubric not only identifies what information the professor wants included in the exam, paper, assignment, or other assessment technique, but also what combination of this information the professor desires. If properly conveyed to others, a rubric can also lead to better responses from students; clarify the method of grading for the



instructor, teaching assistants, and students alike; and provide the professor with evidence of the students’ mastery of the desired material. Different types of rubrics can be used, depending on such factors as what is being graded (e.g., an assignment, a paper, a final exam), the nature of comments the instructor intends to provide, and the time necessary to prepare the rubric and grade the assignment. One type of rubric that can be employed is the analytical rubric. This approach involves developing a grading key containing the components of what an ideal answer or assignment would be. As the grader reads through the assignment, she or he checks the components included in the student’s work and the number of points earned, allowing for partial credit for incomplete or partially correct answers. Alternatively, the key could be a rating scale in which the grader checks off whether and how well the student satisfied each stated criteria. At the end, the grader then totals up the points or checkmarks earned to determine the student’s grade.

An analytical rubric is best used when instructors wish to grade for specific criteria, and for knowledge- or comprehension-oriented learning outcomes.15 Although an analytical rubric may slow down the grading process a bit, it does enable instructors to articulate their key factors for grading. Further, it is a good tool to provide students more discreet feedback on where their answers were insufficient. For example, you would select the criteria on which you wish to assess students’ performance, then articulate what a “beginning,” “developing,” “accomplished,” and “exemplary” answer would be for each criterion. The analytic rubric may be structured into a table, such as table 2.

Table 2.



Source: Craig A. Mertler (2001). “Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom.”Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(25). Retrieved February 10, 2008, fromhttp://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=25.

Another type that can be used is the holistic rubric. With this assessment tool, the emphasis is not on identifying specific criteria to be evaluated, but rather on judging the overall quality of the work. In designing a holistic rubric, the professor would develop “short narrative descriptions of the characteristics of outstanding work, acceptable work, unacceptable work, and so on.”16 A holistic rubric does not result in much specific feedback for students, but does allow for faster evaluation, particularly when compared to an analytical rubric. Further, it more readily allows the professor to incorporate higher- order learning outcomes, such as application, into the assessment. Given these benefits, a holistic rubric may be best used


http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=25


as a summative assessment tool at the end of a semester in the form of final papers or essay questions on final exams.17 A simple example of a holistic rubric follows.18

An outstanding (A) paper has the following characteristics: (1) It meets all the content requirements of the assignment, as described [to the students in the assignment]; (2) It is error-free; (3) It uses appropriate

language [e.g., simple sentence and paragraph structure, unemotional and professional terms, no contractions]; (4) It is well written. It is clear, understandable, and well organized, with an appropriate flow and headings. There are sound rationales for conclusions and decisions, evidence of serious thought, and no inconsistencies in what is said.

A good (B) paper is well done, but with some significant flaws not in an “A” paper (e.g., some errors or unclear statements).

An adequate (C) paper meets the content requirements and its major points can be understood, but it has several significant flaws not in an “A” paper (e.g., the content is not uniformly clear or consistent, or the paper has minimal discussion).

An inadequate (F) paper seriously fails to meet most of the characteristics of an “A” paper. Most critically, it does not meet the content requirements and/or is so poorly written that its major points cannot be understood.

One warning to heed when using rubrics: Both instructor and student run the risk of focusing on satisfying only the stated criteria in the rubric, particularly those of a more objective nature. Remember, rubrics are designed to translate the instructor’s professional judgment into more meaningful and comparable measures of student



learning. Thus, to guard against “objectifying” the use of a rubric, Suskie suggests that one should “leave room for the ‘ineffables’ and the unexpected,” by, for example, basing a portion of the assignment score on more subjective criteria such as the student’s “effort, originality, or insight.”19

One can see from the above discussion that the use of rubrics for grading is not vastly different from the way many professors already approach grading. Most instructors have a sense of what they are looking for in a particular assignment or answer, and what distinguishes an “A” from a “B” answer (or perhaps more precisely an “A-minus” from a “B-plus” answer). Employing a rubric compels professors to take the additional step of transforming this “sense” of grading into a more intentional structure that sets out the evaluation criteria and permits them to more directly measure student learning.

Costs and Benefits in Intentionally Designing a Course to Incorporate a Formal Assessment StrategyTo effectively bring together the various aspects of assessment discussed in this chapter, instructors will need to intentionally redesign their introductory AG courses, or at least certain aspects of it. Specifically, professors need to intentionally link the learning experiences within the courses (e.g., lecture, discussion, assignments, and other related activities) to the learning outcomes desired. Using the sample learning outcomes discussed earlier, professorsmight develop a chart like figure 1.



Figure 1.

The effort needed to intentionally redesign one’s course to align learning opportunities with evidence-gathering assessment techniques admittedly comes with some costs in time, effort, and resources. Some of the costs with this sort of approach include the upfront time necessary to design the course, to write learning outcomes, and to develop the appropriate rubrics for grading, all of which requires time to think and plan in an already demanding schedule of teaching, research, and service. Some of this planning even boils down to issues of classroom logistics: Does a classroom have the appropriate technology to facilitate the use of certain



techniques? Are the chairs in the room bolted to the floor (thereby making it more difficult for students to position themselves into small or one-on-one groups for discussion purposes)?

Describe the role and powers of each branch of American government within the system of separation of powers and checks and balances. Discuss the ways in which political parties and interest groups seek to influence elections. Explain the difference between civil rights and civil liberties, citing examples of each. A one-sentence summary about the impact of a presidential veto in the legislative process. A service-learning option in which students work for a candidate, party, or interest group on a local election, with a reflection paper by the student at the end of the assignment. Small-group discussions about the current state of civil liberties and civil rights in America. Embedded test questions in a multiple choice knowledge survey and final exam. Analytical rubric centered on key concepts, e.g., parties’ ability to nominate candidates; pluralistic parties vs. single-interest groups; use of money in elections. Holistic rubric employed to grade final exam essay question.

Also, the professor may in some cases need to sacrifice the breadth of substantive content covered in a course in order to employ certain assessment techniques. Breadth may also need to be sacrificed in order to delve into certain subject matters in sufficient depth to achieve the desired learning outcome or to make the assessment evidence meaningful. Take the above example of using small-group discussions as a formative assessment technique to measure students’ learning on civil rights and civil liberties. In a typical 50-minute MWF class, this exercise would likely consume one full course period, thus leaving the professor with one less period to lecture on another subject matter. As a result, instructors will need to make a judgment as to which approach provides the best learning experience for their students. Hopefully, the benefits of intentionally



redesigning one’s course to tie learning outcomes to assessment-oriented learning activities will outweigh the costs. Some benefits of this approach are:

Direct connection between learning opportunities and learning outcomes (e.g., the connection between an in-class campaign simulation and the students’ ability to discuss the ways in which political parties and interest groups seek to influence elections).

The ability to tailor-teach strategies and approaches to address students’ disconnect with course material, students’ learning styles, and one’s own teaching style.

Grading made more systematic and uniform—particularly beneficial when teaching assistants will be doing the grading.

Students can have a better, up-front understanding of what is expected of them on any given assignment and in the course as a whole.

Ability to provide students with more in-depth, demonstrable explanations of their grades, and how they can improve on future assignments.

Obtaining evidence that your course is meeting core curriculum standards.

Course mapping to program outcomes. For example, if one of the political science department’s program outcomes is that political science majors should demonstrate knowledge of the inputs, decision-making entities, and outputs of the American political process, then the learning outcomes in the introductory AG course should also be along these lines. With respect to these last two benefits, the data gathered can be used for what is often referred to as “closing the loop.” In other words, it



can provide evidence and feedback for further course refinement or redesign. In addition, this evidence can inform course and program analysis as well as core assessment. It can also provide beneficial insights for course mapping and continuity within the political science degree option. Furthermore, this evidence can inform long-range planning for faculty, the program, and the university, as well as assist in creating a culture of evidence that might lead to securing additional funding and support—such as creating a case for additional faculty members

or the need for additional course offerings. Besides the obvious benefit of an improved learning experience for students, faculty members can derive significant personal benefits from employing an intentionally designed approach. For example, faculty can use the evidence culled through assessment of the AG course to create a teaching portfolio for tenure and promotion. Additionally, such evidence can provide a source of data to engage in the scholarship of teaching and learning. The American Political Science Association (APSA) has been on the forefront of teaching and learning enterprises, including holding the annual APSA Teaching and Learning Conference since 2004. Faculty might also consider presenting their research at a local, regional, or national conference, or publishing findings from course-level analysis in P.S.: Political Science and Politics, the Journal of Political Science Education (sponsored by APSA’s Undergraduate Education Section), or another scholarly journal. (Visit http://www.apsanet.org/section_494.cfm for examples of such.)



For faculty, the heart of what we do is to ensure student learning. Incorporating a more proactive, intentional level of assessment in our introductory courses can improve how we teach by helping us to understand how students learn. It creates a more engaged dialogue with our students on an ongoing basis and facilitates midcourse and between-course offering corrections. The result is a more dynamic and engaged classroom experience for students and faculty.

Resources for AssessmentBooksAnderson, Lorin W., and David R. Krathwohl, eds. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman, 2001.Angelo, Thomas A., and K. Patricia Cross. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. 2nd ed. Jossey-Bass, 1993.Bloom, Benjamin S., ed. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Longman, 1956.Bloom, B.S., M. D. Englehart, E.J. Furst, W.H. Hill, W.H. and D.R. Krathwohl.Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. Longman. 1956.Bonwell, Charles C., and James A. Eison. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development, 1991.Cross, K. Patricia, and Mimi Harris Stedman. Classroom Research: Implementing the Scholarship of Teaching. Jossey-Bass, 1996.Diamond, Robert M. Designing & Assessing Courses & Curriculum: A Practical Guide. Jossey-Bass 1998.Nilson, Linda B. Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors. Anker Publishing Company, Inc., 2003.Suskie, Linda. Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide. Anker Publishing Company, Inc., 2004.Walvoord, Barbara E. Assessment Clear and Simple: A Practical Guide for Institutions, Departments, and General Education. Jossey-Bass, 2004.Weimer, Maryellen. Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. Jossey-Bass, 2002.Zubizarreta, John. The Learning PortFolio: Reflective Practice for Improving Student Learning. Anker Publishing Company, Inc., 2004.Internet SitesGeneral AssessmentAmerican Political Science Association: Student Assessment and Learning Outcomes, http://www.apsanet.org/section_563.cfm.NC State University: Internet Resources for Higher Education Outcomes Assessment,http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/assmt/resource.htm.Huitt, W. “Bloom’s et al.’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain,” Educational PsychologyInteractive. Valdosta State University, 2004, http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/bloom.html.Cooperative Institutional Research Program’s Web site for the Freshman Survey, which could be used and adapted to assess political engagement, http://www.heriucla.edu/cirpoverview.php.Course Redesign and Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL) Five Models for Assessing Student Learning. Available at: http://www.center.rpi.edu/PlanRes/R2R_ModAssess.htm#Measure



“Domains of Learning.” Available at: http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/assessment/domains.htmlRubricsRubric for American Government Projects, http://drake.marin.k12.ca.us/academics/pbl/acadx/am_gov_rubric.PDFPractical Assessment, Research & Evaluation: Designing Scoring Rubrics for Your Classroom, http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=25Student Learning OutcomesStudent Assessment and Learning Outcomes, http://www.apsanet.org/section_563.cfmExamples of Assessable Student Learning Objectives or Outcomes, http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/uhh/genedfac/objectives.php199Writing Exam QuestionsImproving Your Test Questions, http://www.oir.uiuc.edu/dme/exams/ ITQ.htmlDesigning effective objective test questions: an introductory workshop, http://www.caacentre.ac.uk/dldocs/otghdout.pdfWriting effective objective test questions, http://www.sddu.leeds.ac.uk/online_resources/assessment/objective/objective_higher.htmOWL at Purdue University: Writing Essay Exams, http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/general/gl_essay.htmlPreparing Effective Essay Questions, http://testing.byu.edu/info/handbooks/WritingEffectiveEssayQuestions.pdf

Notes1Benjamin S. Bloom, ed., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of EducationalGoals (New York: Longman, 1956).2William Huitt, “Bloom’s et al.’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain,” Educational Psychology Interactive, 2004, http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/bloom.html.3Lorin W. Anderson and David R. Krathwohl, eds., A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (New York: Longman, 2001).4This learning outcome is taken from an Introduction to American Government course in which the author of this chapter used a service-learning option to promote civic engagement.5Linda Suskie, Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide (San Francisco: Anker Publishing, 2004), 95.6Angelo Thomas and K. Patricia Cross, Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers, 2nd ed. (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1993), 183.7Ibid., 188.8Ibid., 203.9Ibid.10Ibid.11Charles C. Bonwell and James A. Eison, “Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom,” ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 1 (Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development, 1991).12“Domains of Learning,” http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/assessment/domains.html.13Information regarding this survey can be found at the Cooperative Institutional Research Program’s Web site, http://www.heri.ucla.edu/cirpoverview.php. This site includes a link to the most recent survey instrument used in the study.14Barbara E.Walvoord, Assessment Clear and Simple: A Practical Guide for Institutions, Departments, and General Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004), 19.15Linda B. Nilson, Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors (San Francisco: Anker Publishing, 2003), 21516Linda Suskie, Assessing Student Learning, 129–132.17Linda B. Nilson, Teaching at Its Best, 217.18Holistic rubric from Linda Suskie, Assessing Student Learning, 163–164.19Linda Suskie, Assessing Student Learning, 135.


http://owl.english.purdue.edu/

http://drake.marin.k12.ca.us/academics/pbl/

Essay 1 - Test Bank Instanttestbanksinstant.eu/samples/Solution Manual for Struggle... · Web...

Documents

Transcript of Essay 1 - Test Bank Instanttestbanksinstant.eu/samples/Solution Manual for Struggle... · Web...