MEETING FORMAT

The APSA Teaching and Learning Conference uses the working group format, which encourages small working groups of scholars to engage in intensive and sustained discussions of original research on pedagogical topics and the scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL) in political science. Each working group or track is organized around a special theme. To facilitate the discussions, all meeting participants attend one working group for the duration of the meeting. The conference also features special interactive workshops that focus on practical issues related to teaching.

2014 CONFERENCE OVERVIEW

The 2014 APSA Teaching and Learning Conference featured 14 moderated tracks organized around themes such as civic engagement; diversity, inclusiveness and equality; integrating technology into the classroom; internationalizing the curriculum, and program assessment. A new track on distance learning was offered this year, as well as a number of workshops addressing various themes related to simulations and role play, learning communities, active learning, and publishing in SOTL.

More than 300 individuals—including 39 graduate students—from a variety of academic and nonacademic institutions participated in the 2014 conference. Meeting participants enjoyed a number of plenary sessions. During the opening session, John Aldrich (APSA President) and Kimberly Mealy (APSA Director of Education, Professional, and Diversity Programs) provided welcoming remarks. Steven Rathgeb Smith (APSA Executive Director) presented the Pi Sigma Alpha Keynote Address titled “Teaching Political Science: Innovation, Change, and the Role of the Association.” John Ishiyama (University of North Texas) and Chad Raymond (Salve Regina University) cofacilitated the preconference short course “A Conversation on the Advantages and Disadvantages of MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) in Political Science and Civic Education.” The meeting also featured a memorial tribute to the late Craig Brians (Virginia Tech), a long-time leader in the political science teaching and learning community, organized by the APSA Teaching and Learning Conference program committee, the APSA Organized Section on Political Science Education, and the APSA Committee on Teaching and Learning. The meeting concluded on February 9, 2014 with a plenary session in which the participants and track moderators shared highlights and take-away points from each track, followed by recommendations for the future of political science education.

POSTCONFERENCE DETAILS

Materials and resources from the Teaching and Learning Conference are publically available. To download papers and to view video clips keynote and the short course on MOOCs, visit www.apsanet.org/teachingconference.

2014 PROGRAM COMMITTEE

APSA thanks the following individuals who served on the program committee and as track moderators.

Victor Asal (Chair), SUNY, University at Albany

Mark Johnson, Minnesota State Community and Technical College

Agnieszka Paczynska, George Mason University

Boris Ricks, California State University, Northridge

Cameron Thies, Arizona State University

Sherri Wallace, University of Louisville

We would also like to thank the 2014 meeting attendees and the APSA staff for contributing to success of the meeting. We look forward to seeing you at the 2015 meeting.

TRACK SUMMARIES

Track summaries from the 2014 APSA Teaching and Learning Conference are published in the following pages of PS. These summaries include highlights and themes that emerged from the research presented in each track. The summary authors also issued recommendations for faculty, departments, and the discipline as a whole—providing suggestions for new strategies, resources, and approaches aimed at advancing political science education throughout the discipline and beyond. In keeping with the theme of the meeting, “Teaching Inclusively: Integrating Multiple Approaches into the Curriculum,” there are common themes that emerged throughout the track summaries and the recommendations contained therein. For example: (1) The call for increased appreciation and use of a diverse set of research methods, technologies, and teaching platforms acknowledges that not only do political issues and problems require unique research methods, but students in the same class may also have unique problem-solving and learning skills. Therefore faculty may need to incorporate a variety of pedagogical approaches. (2) Increased collaboration, across the discipline and departments, is needed to share examples of graduate program curricula, assessment resources, simulation exercises, and innovations for incorporating theories of diversity in the curriculum with fellow teachers and political science faculty—especially community college instructors. (3) Finally, increase focus on collecting good examples of teaching, learning, and research successes so that individuals, and the discipline, can effectively advocate on behalf of political science education. These are but a few examples of the meaningful discourse and ideas that emanated from the 2014 track presentations and discussions.

The fourteen tracks are listed here and the track summaries for each are featured below:

• • Civic Engagement

• • Conflict and Conflict Resolution

• • Core Curriculum/General Education

• • Curricular and Program Assessment

• • Distance Learning

• • Diversity, Inclusiveness, and Equality

• • Graduate Education: Teaching and Advising Graduate Students

• • Integrating Technology into the Classroom

• • Internationalizing the Curriculum

• • Simulations and Role Play I: International and Domestic Politics and Their Intersection

• • Simulations and Role Play II: Assessment and Methodology

• • Teaching and Learning at Community Colleges

• • Teaching Political Theory and Theories

• • Teaching Research Methods

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

Elizabeth Bennion, Indiana University, South Bend

Kathleen Cole, Metropolitan State University

Bobbi Gentry, Bridgewater College

The papers presented at this year’s track on civic engagement demonstrate the continuing significance of civic engagement pedagogies for teaching and learning in political science. These papers build on the excellent scholarship presented in APSA’s recent publication, Teaching Civic Engagement, while identifying new areas for future theorizing and research. During this year’s track, participants sought to identify ways to overcome challenges and achieve desired learning outcomes through the pedagogy of civic engagement. As we continue to develop the scholarship and practice of civic engagement pedagogies, we suggest some considerations that should inform the study of teaching and learning in political science.

CONFLICT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Bidisha Biswas, Western Washington University

Patrick McNamara, University of Nebraska at Omaha

Christina Sciabarra, University of Arizona

Participants in the Conflict and Conflict Resolution track discussed a wide range of issues related to the challenges of teaching conflict theory and the practice of conflict resolution. With a mix of international scholars, tenured and nontenured faculty, and graduate students, the discussions were lively and focused on assessment methods, approaches to practical skills training, and new strategies for innovation.

CORE CURRICULUM/GENERAL EDUCATION

Lilian A. Barria, Eastern Illinois University

Andreas Broscheid, James Madison University

Tyson D. King-Meadows , University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Melinda A. Mueller, Eastern Illinois University

Erin E. Richards, Cascadia Community College

Henrik M. Schatzinger , Ripon College

Political science course offerings are often a part of an institution’s core curriculum requirements, in many cases through an American government course. It is important for all of us to think about how political science contributes to and enhances the undergraduate general education curriculum for both majors and nonmajors to be effective advocates for political science as part of the university curriculum as well as to those outside academia. With 10 presentations and 28 discussants, the track identified citizenship education as a core contribution of political science to education in general and to preparing individuals, through content and skill development, to be valuable members of society.

Papers in this track focused on a diversity of topics, including moving beyond the discussion of content versus skills, horizontally integrating learning objectives and skill development into core curriculum course content, and assessing the impact of political science courses in developing knowledge and skills. We conclude this track overview with recommendations for colleagues, APSA, and policymakers.

CURRICULAR AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

Shane Nordyke, University of South Dakota

Candace Young, Truman State University

Our view of assessment, and what it may offer us, has matured substantially during the past decade. We have moved from a position of “Assessment is coming, how can we get through it?” to one of “How can we seize the discourse and momentum of assessment to best benefit our programs and our students?” Slowly, we see departments learning to stop treating assessment as a purely administrative exercise and instead use assessment to demonstrate effectiveness in the most important aspects of our discipline. This change is reflected in the assessment research we see at the APSA Teaching and Learning Conference. Papers in this year’s track document research that examines more complex outcomes like critical thinking, efficacy, and resiliency. We are also seeing more papers that are moving beyond the outcomes of a single course and including more systematic comparative studies of curriculum and student outcomes. Within the varied body of work that was presented, we found our discussions focused on three primary questions: How do we overcome the methodological challenges associated with effective assessment? How similar are our goals, objectives, and outcomes across the discipline and what does this mean for collaboration in assessment efforts? How can we design assessment processes so that these are most beneficial to our students, our departments, and our colleagues?

A persistent challenge in effectively assessing programs is overcoming the methodological challenges that are associated with measuring what really matters. When asked to list the most important learning outcomes for the political science student, faculty members often prioritize skills such as critical thinking, effective oral and written communication, appreciation for diversity, and the responsibilities of citizenship, as much as, if not more than, specific knowledge sets (Butler 2014). These outcomes or competencies often have been more difficult to assess than the acquisition of rote knowledge. However, several of our track presenters directly addressed these challenges by developing rubrics and assessment techniques to assess critical thinking, (Grussendorf 2014 ; Kropf, Szmer, and Whitaker 2104), resiliency (Lusk 2014), and student perceptions of democracy and the utility of social science (Kropf et al. 2014). We also discussed the methodological challenges inherent in evaluating single courses as experiments, or even multiple courses that still lack random assignment. Will students self-select into experimental course designs in a way that will bias assessment results? In facing this particular challenge, Kropf et al. used propensity matching between students in control and treatment sections of a course to overcome potential bias that might be introduced through nonrandom assignment.

Much of our discussion was also centered on our possible identity crisis within the discipline. How far have we really come since Wahlke (1991)? To what extent do our various departments and programs look uniform relative to other social sciences? Most of us working in the United States tend to think of our programs as quite heterogeneous, with different emphasis on subfields and different patterns of coordination with related disciplines such as history, criminal justice, and public administration. With so much variation, to what extent were standard expectations possible? Despite evidence of the effectiveness of Wahlke recommendations, these have not been widely adopted (McClellan and Maurer 2014; Cammarano and Oglesby 2014). However, international scholars within the track saw programs in the United States as relatively similar, at least compared to the diversity within their own programs (Botero 2014; Groth 2014). Further, an evaluation of the outcomes of political science programs reveals greater consistency than did a study of curricula (Butler 2014; Kohler and Young 2014).

Finally, we still look for the best ways to ensure that our assessment efforts benefit our students, departments, and colleagues. Developing and implementing effective assessment processes takes a significant amount of faculty time and effort. Hence, it is important that departments invest in not only properly incentivizing the work (through appropriate credit for service, work releases, etc.) but also ensure that assessment results are fully utilized. Assessment can be a useful faculty development exercise. Effective assessment techniques, such as well-developed capstone courses, can also enable students to better articulate the added value of their educational experiences. Finally, departments should reap the full returns of the investment by using assessment results to strategically negotiate for needed resources, similar to the way professional programs often use accreditation efforts.

Looking forward, this track’s discussions encourage the discipline, and APSA in particular, to move forward in efforts to identify strengths of political science and ways to provide evidence of its achievements (Kohler and Young, 2014). Such evidence may be quite useful in pushing back against increasing numbers of lines and salary dollars going to programs with specialized accreditation as well as politicians who question the discipline’s contributions. These efforts could include establishing a working group to evaluate the feasibility of moving toward an accreditation process for political science programs.

REFERENCES

Botero, Santiago Leyva, Andres Preciado, Jose Fortou, and Laura Toro. 2014. “The Institutionalization of Political Science in Colombia: An Analysis of the Curricula.” Presented at the annual APSA Teaching and Learning Conference, Philadelphia, PA, February 7–9.

Butler, Christopher K. 2014. “Comparing Curricula and Assessment Processes of B.A. Programs in Political Science.” Presented at the annual APSA Teaching and Learning Conference, Philadelphia, PA, February 7–9.

Cammarano, Joseph, and Mark Oglesby. 2014. “Learning from High School Teachers: How Trends in High School Can Inform Political Science Education.” Presented at the annual APSA Teaching and Learning Conference, Philadelphia, PA, February 7–9.

Groth, Terrie R. 2014. “The Case for Competency-Based Teaching and Learning in Political Science.” Presented at the annual APSA Teaching and Learning Conference, Philadelphia, PA, February 7–9.

Grussendorf, Jeannie. 2014. “Reflections on Foreign Policy: Enhancing Students’ Critical Thinking Skills.” Presented at the annual APSA Teaching and Learning Conference, Philadelphia, PA, February 7–9.

Kohler, Ryan and Candace C. Young. 2014. “Political Science Departments, Assessment, and Implications.” Presented at the annual APSA Teaching and Learning Conference, Philadelphia, PA, February 7–9.

Kropf, Martha, John Szmer, and Beth Elise Whitaker. 2014. “Using Propensity Matching to Evaluate the Effectiveness of an American Politics Large-Course Design.” Presented at the annual APSA Teaching and Learning Conference, Philadelphia, PA, February 7–9.

Lusk, Adam. 2014. “Using Metacognition to Teach Resiliency in Introduction to Political Science.” Presented at the annual APSA Teaching and Learning Conference, Philadelphia, PA, February 7–9.

McClellan, E. Fletcher and Brianna Maurer. 2014. “After Wahlke: New Models for Organizing the Undergraduate Political Science Major and the Prospects for Reform.”

Wahlke, John C. 1991. “Liberal Learning and the Political Science Major: A Report to the Profession.” PS: Political Science and Politics 24 (1), 48–60.

DISTANCE LEARNING

Nanette S. Levinson, American University

Tracy S. Harbin, Seminole State College

This year, 2014, marks the inaugural year for the Distance Learning track at the APSA Teaching and Learning Conference. The inclusion of this track recognizes the increased scholarly activity and even media coverage devoted to distance learning as a field. Taken as a whole, the research presented in this track highlights the emergence of distance learning in all of its myriad formats including as a strategic component for students, faculty, staff, and especially higher education administrators both in the United States and globally (Allen and Seaman 2013). Numerous questions and findings emerged from the track papers and discussions; in addition, these papers and discussions served as a foundation for identifying research and action opportunities. These questions, findings, and opportunities can be grouped into six sections: three main themes, an additional two action items for APSA and the profession, and future research elements.

DIVERSITY, INCLUSIVENESS, AND EQUALITY

Boris E. Ricks, California State University Northridge

Jessica L. Aubin, SUNY, University at Albany

The eleventh meeting of the Diversity, Inclusiveness, and Equality (DIE) track at the 2014 APSA Teaching and Learning Conference focused on issues of diversity and inequality as they relate to pedagogical, classroom, departmental, and institution-wide matters from multiple perspectives. The DIE track hosted 16 participants and 10 research papers. Track paper titles included “The Importance of LGBT Inclusion in the Classroom;” “Teaching Race in Introductory American Government and Politics;” “From Gutter to Fisher: The Contradictions of Diversity as it Applies to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs);” “Teaching Educational Inequality through a Civic Engagement Perspective: Integrating Diversity, Faith-Based Principles, and Service;” “Empowering Students to Address Punishment and Inequality: A Case Study of the Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program;” and “African-Americans and Study Abroad Programs in Political Science,” to name a few. Several track discussants provided constructive criticism and useful feedback to the presenters. Significant and meaningful dialogue focused on the meaning of diversity, teaching methods, student learning outcomes and diversity, inclusive supplemental resources, and campus climate issues.

GRADUATE EDUCATION: TEACHING AND ADVISING GRADUATE STUDENTS

Allison H. Turner, West Chester University

Jennifer Kelkres Emery, University of West Florida

Ann Marie Mezzell, Alabama State University

Joshua A. Green, University of California, Berkeley

The 2014 APSA Teaching and Learning Conference’s call to action for participants to teach inclusively and integrate multiple approaches featured prominently in the Graduate Education track’s discussion. Research highlighted potential challenges and opportunities for graduate education in political science and public affairs and identified a single common theme: graduate programs must rethink structure, curriculum, and incentives so that they better meet the employment and skills requirements of a fast-changing labor market. In particular, there was consensus that programs should recognize different groups of students within a single program who may have different professional ambitions and goals. Several papers sparked discussion relating to the relationship between economic conditions and graduate education. To prepare graduate students for a dynamic labor market and changing workforce, graduate education programs need to be versatile and responsive. Strategies for student engagement, curriculum development, and pedagogy need to reflect the changing professional standards, career aspirations, and learning styles of an increasingly diverse student population.

Mitchell Brown’s research observes that the attainment of a tenure-track position for graduate students pursuing a degree in academia is a major indicator of the quality of graduate education; however, there is no consensus among graduate programs regarding how to best help students accomplish this. She addresses the importance of graduate student methods training and publication skills as tools for attainment of tenure-track jobs. Her research identified a combination of required programmatic methods training and publications as the best indicators of success. Discussants remarked on the apparent “ratio shift” between available tenure-track positions and one-year (or postdoctoral) positions. Some noted that the shift presents particular challenges for graduate students entering the market, as well as for faculty concerned with their students’ chances of placement.

The work of Josh Green, Linda Alvarez, and Jennifer Kelkres Emery speaks to the challenges of preparing future political science academics for the classroom. They identify a number of trends affecting graduate education, including greater diversity in student populations, increased financial pressure on that population, and a competitive job market that demands more of graduates. These trends require instructors who are able to transition students out of the traditional passive role of receiving a lecture. The authors recommend that new instructors should be encouraged to design active teaching modules that can be easily integrated into future courses. The authors presented three examples of such active teaching modules from their own classroom experience. These and other innovative pedagogical approaches prepare students to teach actively. Discussants agreed that faculty need to serve as models by demonstrating openness to developing instructional approaches.

David Ramsey and Jocelyn Evans furthered the conversation on the changing nature of the political science and public affairs graduate student population. Their research calls attention to the challenges faced by graduate education programs to be responsive to various student learning styles and preferences while maintaining the integrity of a traditional graduate experience. Track participants noted that job security and career advancement concerns often motivate midcareer professionals and working parents to pursue graduate work. Because of family and job commitments, these students may find it difficult, if not impossible, to take part in traditional campus-based courses. If departments hope to attract and serve these students, then successful adoption and integration of distance-learning technologies is paramount.

Similar to the challenges associated with a changing student population highlighted by other presenters, Ann Mezzell’s research addresses the complexity of developing pedagogical approaches and delivery mechanisms that cater to a discipline with a growing number of subfields and professional vocations. She explores the role of terminal political science and related master’s degree programs within higher education. Her work draws attention to the obstacles involved in matching curricular design with diverse postdegree career pursuits. Panelists noted that although students pursue the degree for various reasons, faculty members tend to treat the MA as a predominantly academic (rather than professional) degree. Mezzell’s analysis reveals a need for input from assessment coordinators and directors of graduate study. Such input, she suggested, might better enable faculty members to prepare students for entry into the workforce as well as further academic study.

Allison Turner’s research explores the challenges associated with incorporating information literacy into the curriculum of graduate programs. As the expectations of graduate students within our discipline expand, so does the definition of information literacy. Graduate students, in both masters and PhD granting institutions, regardless of postdegree career aspirations, need to communicate and interact productively with a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry. Panelists discussed the role of information literacy in civic engagement, noting that these competencies are universally required for students of political science and public affairs graduate programs. Ensuring that the curriculum of our graduate program keeps apace with such rapid change is both a challenge and an opportunity.

In addition to proposing new avenues for research, we also developed broad, institutional solutions to address these challenges. John Ishiyama had already taken the initiative to invite Philadelphia-area practitioners of graduate education, defined as deans of graduate studies, to our Sunday session at the 2014 conference. Although none were able to attend, we decided that it would be a great practice to repeat the experiment in future years and expand it by adding a workshop for them to discuss challenges they face. We would also like to invite them to attend part of or our entire panel to listen to the new research evaluating graduate education and its role in the profession.

We collectively want to reinforce the idea that there are a set of skills that are timeless, versatile, and appropriate for MA, MPP, MPA, MIA, MSA, and PhD graduate programs: oral and written communication, critical thinking, and analytical skills. Of course, the nature of those skills is changing as technology modifies the delivery mechanisms for information. As faculty, we have to develop curricula to accommodate new modes of communication. These modes require speaking in a captivating manner about yourself and your research; adjusting to new standards for the use of emergent presentation systems and techniques; social media; and facilitating discussion and participation in synchronous online courses (using video technology like Scopia or Blackboard Collaborate).

Underlying the broad range of concerns addressed was a common acknowledgment of the difficulties inherent in the graduate student mentoring process. Panelists generally agreed that faculty face numerous challenges—stemming from the lack of standardization of graduate program design and outcomes, confusion regarding designated responsibilities for graduate student professionalization, and competing career concerns—in advising students on how to best prepare themselves for competitive job market conditions. Nonetheless, the achievement of more cohesive student guidance messages, as well as “high impact” graduate education practices, is within reach. By seeking additional knowledge of the political science graduate experience, including its advertised purposes and outcomes, faculty can better assist students in the areas of professionalization and proactive self-marketing. Further inquiry, whether carried out by individual researchers, or by an APSA working group, might include specific tasks such as: (1) the collection of curricula vitae for the establishment of additional links between educational preparation and job placements, (2) the analysis of departmental website statements regarding program curricula and mission statements, (3) the development of surveys for the department heads, students, and employers about job training and placements, and (4) the provision for a future APSA Teaching and Learning Conference workshop, or focus group, for the discussion of these topics. Please note that the Journal of Political Science Education encourages submissions on the subject of graduate student training, professionalization, and career tracks.

INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY INTO THE CLASSROOM

Cali Mortenson Ellis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Ian G. Anson, Indiana University, Bloomington

Jeanine E. Yutani, University of Southern California

The use of technology in the classroom is almost taken for granted by most political science instructors. From PowerPoint slides to clickers to smartphones, however, the use of technology has evolved into a standard part of modern education. The dependence on technology for both students and teachers has and will continue to increase as more classrooms shift to online or hybrid (part in-classroom, part online) formats, and as class sizes continue to grow. With these developments comes a greater need for educators to not only be familiar with more technological solutions to classic classroom problems, but to also be more judicious in their application of new technologies.

All too often, the evaluation of classroom technologies is lacking. What actually works to motivate students and improve learning outcomes? To help answer this question, participants in the Integrating Technology in the Classroom track presented their own research on the use of various well-known and obscure technologies in political science classroom settings. Topics included using screen capture technology to provide student feedback, employing clickers to enhance student engagement, enhancing classroom interaction through Facebook campaigns, “flipping” the political science classroom, and much more. Presenters shared practical advice and discussed the potential issues faced when integrating technology in the classroom. As users of technology and scholarly evaluators of effectiveness, it was clear to track participants that this is a rich area of potential research.

INTERNATIONALIZING THE CURRICULUM

A. Olivia Miljanic, University of Houston

Shamira Gelbman, Wabash College

Deborah Ward, Rutgers University

The Internationalizing the Curriculum track furthered the work completed in previous years on the conceptualization and implementation of internationalization in the discipline. The track had two primary goals: (1) raise awareness and disseminate knowledge about internationalizing the curriculum broadly in the discipline; and (2) share best practices. The track started by addressing the first goal, as initial discussions around the Roberts paper advanced a preliminary survey administered to participants in the 2013 APSA Teaching and Learning Conference. Subsequently, track participants outlined some of the primary challenges to internationalization in the discipline and explored responses to them. In addressing the second goal of sharing best practices, track discussions examined tools for internationalizing the curriculum and assessment of internationalization initiatives.

The preliminary survey on internationalizing the curriculum incorporated components of track discussions from previous APSA Teaching and Learning Conferences. One of these components was a definition for internationalizing the curriculum. Three definitional aspects prevalent in survey answers mapped onto ideas from past conference discussions: (1) using non-US perspectives, materials, authors, and cases; (2) exploring international connections in modern society; and (3) student exposure to other cultures and languages.

Survey results also prompted track discussion on challenges to internationalizing the curriculum. A survey question about integrating American politics into the comparative politics subfield elicited primarily negative responses. This illustrates vertical pressures against internationalizing the curriculum. Support for internationalizing often appears rhetorical. Another example is a situation where administrators encourage curriculum internationalization while simultaneously reducing language training opportunities. Vertical pressures are linked to US state legislatures’ focus on directing resources to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) training at the expense of internationalization.

A different set of challenges originates from the apparent duality in a commitment to internationalizing the curriculum coupled with a hegemonic view of the world favoring a US perspective and US-specific concerns. Previous years’ track discussions emphasized the importance of internationalization to national interest and the use of internationalization as a means to expand state power. The Cook paper, based on the question of whether the way we teach international relations reinforces American hegemony, stressed the importance of separating internationalization from American foreign interest.

Track participants also discussed the challenge of reduced student interest in listening to the voices of other peoples, countries, and cultures.

In response to these challenges, track discussants formulated proposals for promoting internationalization. In presenting internationalization initiatives to college administrators, one possible area of emphasis is the necessity of training students to be savvy consumers and entrepreneurs. The field of nursing was used to exemplify the variety of professions that require cross-cultural competency.

Another perspective in promoting internationalization tools is study abroad as a lesson in how to travel. This is particularly valuable at a time when increasingly more professionals must travel for work. Furthermore, the current job market places students in competition with international job candidates. Accordingly, they are well served by a deeper understanding of the world.

In interactions with administrators, internationalization can also be framed as a way to attain the central goals of enhancing students’ writing and critical thinking skills.

Track discussions around the Wright paper emphasized the study of microstates for stimulating student interest in international affairs and lobbying administrators. These states represent obscure yet fascinating cases that perform excellently in the areas of economic development, healthcare, and environmental sustainability. Wright’s paper complemented Cook’s by proposing the study of small states in international relations courses to counter-balance the US hegemonic view. In exploring the topic of sovereignty, small countries offer the alternative scenario of using sovereignty as a resource.

Other responses to the challenge of US centrism included the promotion of interdisciplinary research and teaching, a more ideologically balanced presentation of international relations, the curricular incorporation of nonwestern text and opportunities to listen to other people in their own language, and the complementarity of course modules from US and non-US perspectives.

In addition to identifying challenges to internationalization and appropriate responses, track discussions explored a variety of tools for internationalizing the curriculum. While study-abroad programs are the traditional means for achieving this, new pedagogical models and financial pressures are giving rise to alternative pathways for students to gain international experience. A notably innovative internationalization pedagogy that requires no travel is collaborative online international learning (COIL). This model, presented in the Johnson paper, cultivates students’ cultural competency through courses that are taught collaboratively in the United States and at a partner institution abroad and involve extensive student interaction. COIL can be both a tool for internationalizing the curriculum and an effective strategy for addressing challenges to internationalization.

The Gann paper generated discussion around pursuing internationalization not merely at the course or program level, but as a concerted, college-wide effort. The particular college-level promotion tool analyzed included an internationalization checklist for course leaders and a cross-departmental peer-review process. Such an ambitious internationalization initiative poses both opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, it paves the way for institution-wide discussions of internationalization and resource-sharing across departments. Moreover, interdepartmental peer reviews promote interdisciplinary learning. On the other hand, the initiative presumes some preexisting level of administrative support and may undermine the inherent interdisciplinary of internationalization with checklist-style quality control measures that are conducted at the course level.

The internationalization checklist may also serve as an assessment tool, another major area of focus for the track. There was general consensus regarding the importance of assessment both to ensure the educative quality of internationalization programs and to gain support for them from administrators and other stakeholders who may not value internationalizing the curriculum as an end in and of itself.

Presenters called for ongoing, nuanced measures of learning outcomes rather than vague student endorsements immediately after short-term study-abroad and on-campus international experiences. Track members also discussed the importance of assessment at the program level, an intermediary step between the prevalent course level assessment and institutional assessment. A novel and potentially powerful suggestion was to evaluate the wider impact of internationalization programs on faculty and students beyond those immediately involved in them.

The Miljanic paper on the University of Houston’s Certificate in Global Studies and Research program, which provides global exposure in part through interaction with speakers from multinational corporations and a capstone research project, raised interesting possibilities pertaining to the assessment of internationalization efforts. Although initially designed to encourage more study-abroad participation, the program no longer makes it a requirement; as such, it opens the possibility of a quasi-experimental assessment of learning outcomes and other benefits of the certificate for students who do and do not study abroad.

The Internationalizing the Curriculum track fulfilled its dual goal. Each participant took away a few ideas that would affect teaching practices, and the track engendered discussion of action items to disseminate internationalization more broadly throughout the discipline: (1) creation of a working group; (2) development of a short course at the APSA Annual Meeting; (3) creation of a task force with the goal of providing resources for information collection and dissemination and discussing definitions of internationalization that faculty members can use when approaching administrators; (4) development of a plenary discussion at the APSA Annual Meeting to raise awareness more broadly in the discipline; (5) transformation of the preliminary APSA website for internationalizing the curriculum into a more comprehensive website for the many faculty interested in internationalizing the curriculum who cannot attend the APSA Teaching and Learning Conference; (6) revisions to the survey on internationalizing the curriculum based on input from track participants and survey administration to the entire APSA community; (7) creation and dissemination of concise “how-to” booklets; and (8) increased collaboration between the APSA and the International Studies Association.

Participants reiterated the continued need for this track at the conference. Internationalization is always changing, undergoing ebbs and flows dictated in part by external market forces. It is the responsibility of track participants to acknowledge these fluctuations and educate other faculty on the value of internationalization. This process is a crucial step in disseminating internationalization throughout the discipline. Moreover, it increases the chances of success when promoting curricular internationalization to college administrators.

SIMULATIONS AND ROLE PLAY I: INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC POLITICS AND THEIR INTERSECTION

David Yamanishi, Cornell College

Monti Narayan Datta, University of Richmond

Casey Delehanty, Florida State University

Simulations represent a nexus between theory and practice, one that allows political science professors and political practitioners to capitalize on ideas, channel creative energy, promote conceptual understanding, and advance opportunities for problem solving across a range of topics. The value of simulation as a pedagogical technique, in our view, is not merely that students find it an engaging use of classroom time, but that putting students in an imagined context can help them escape preconceptions about politics and political science to internalize political dynamics and the challenges faced by policy makers. Not only did our track review a wide-ranging set of simulations that addressed political activities, such as campaigning and crisis management, and political concepts, such as bargaining and fairness, but we also set aside time, to “test-drive” one of the international relations simulations that we had assessed. By conducting Becki Elkins’s “Donut Wars” as a group, we created a new frame of reference for evaluating the efficacy of simulations, allowing us to further reconsider some of the questions that had animated our earlier discussions (and, as one participant pointed out, allowed the forces of justice to prevail).

Several of our discussions turned on the question of whether realism and pedagogy are in tension with one another. Some participants’ simulations contained complex, interlocking mechanisms intended to capture the multiple and conflicting influences that affect real policy makers (even if the storyline was sometimes imagined), while other participants preferred to isolate specific political dynamics in simplified scenarios to highlight their individual effects. Some level of abstraction from reality is unavoidable, but both approaches have value, perhaps at different points in a student’s career in political science. A related dichotomy prevalent in our discussions that, in the end, we rejected is that between realism and playability; a well-crafted simulation with clear roles and rules should be able to be both empirically relevant and enjoyable (if perhaps challenging) to play.

Another frequent topic for discussion was how to prepare students for their roles in a simulation. Some participants have created rich sets of preparatory materials for their students to provide them with scripts that will, alternately, help them hew more closely to empirical analogues or suggest the range of strategic options available. Other participants prefer to use preparation for role playing as an opportunity to require students to gather and organize information about the actors whom they are imitating or referencing in their simulations. The former may require more advance preparation by the faculty member, but may also result in a more realistic simulation. The latter demands more discovery by students, which may itself be valuable, and may help to avoid the peril of over-constraining the students’ behavior in the simulation by the professor’s understanding of what would “really” happen.

We also discussed the pros and cons of several specific elements of simulation design: whether students with demonstrated talent should be assigned to critical roles, whether students should be assigned to roles contrary to “type,” whether and how the professor should intervene in a simulation that may be going awry, whether students should dress the part in a simulation, whether and how students should work in groups or singly, and whether the professor should play an active or neutral role.

Finally, we considered ways to assess the success of simulations, particularly in an effort to move beyond measures of engagement and interest to accomplishment of more pedagogically central class goals. Debriefing is critical here: we should prompt students to express and assess the construction of the simulation’s rules and roles, the crafting and evaluation of win and loss conditions, and the efficacy and prospects for differing degrees of success and failure of particular strategies. Lessons learned in simulations should be integrated with other teaching techniques and assessed via other course assignments. From the point of view of pedagogical scholarship, pre- and post testing of significant lessons that are addressed partly by simulation and partly by other techniques, in combination with varying the timing of a simulation exercise during the term from class to class, may be a valuable technique.

SIMULATIONS AND ROLE PLAY II: ASSESSMENT AND METHODOLOGY

Patricia Stapleton, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Amanda Rosen, Webster University

The Simulations and Role Play theme was split into two tracks, with the second focusing on “Assessment and Methodology.” The bulk of the papers and discussion addressed the assessment of student learning outcomes, the methodology of assessment, and instructor motivations in selecting role playing and simulation activities for their classes. Overall, this year’s track continued to develop ideas from previous conferences, namely: (1) best practices for assessing simulations, (2) the crucial role of structure and timing of games and assessment, and (3) student and instructor motivations during simulations.

TEACHING AND LEARNING AT COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Terri Desai, Glendale Community College

Cirian Villavicencio, San Joaquin Delta College

The Teaching and Learning at Community Colleges track explored a wide variety of issues. An overarching theme that emerged was that community college educators can be seen as first-responders to a variety of external pressures that will ultimately effect political science education at all levels. These pressures include curriculum and accreditation demands placed on educators by state agencies and four-year schools; the necessity of properly defining, measuring, and achieving student success; the divergent interests and abilities of the student body; and, relatedly, low levels of civic literacy and engagement. Participants agreed that, although these external pressures on our cohort present many challenges, they also present opportunities for innovation that can influence the discipline.

The track discussed the increasing influence of internal and external pressures from accreditation agencies, state offices, and professional associations that demand more accountability in the delivery and efficacy of our curriculum and programs. Although changes have been gradual, there is little doubt that faculty must play a central role in preparing their respective institution’s responses. These changes are increasingly transforming faculties’ roles and responsibilities and effecting our ability to teach and evaluate our students. How will we adapt to these changes in a way that will enable the discipline of political science to remain relevant in the future?

We discovered that these pressures either created limitations or opportunities. Robert Harbaugh and Michael Robinson from the College of Western Idaho presented a case study that illustrated an opportunity. Faced with both internal and external pressures—a new institution with growing student enrollment, one full-time faculty member manning the political science department, and the need to create a comprehensive degree program that articulates to its neighboring four-year institutions—Harbaugh and Robinson created a program that focused on interdisciplinary collaboration. Given that a number of community colleges across the country have small political science departments (one to two full-time faculty), Harbaugh and Robinson assert that partnering with other departments can have both economic and academic benefits that not only streamline costs but also provide a pathway for students to complete degree programs. Their paper revealed that curriculum planning efforts have greater potential for success when faculty approach their tasks as an opportunity to learn from one another, to gather information and data, and to consult with colleagues with different expertise and experience. Recognizing that each institution has its own external and internal pressures, discussants agreed that the model that Harbaugh and Robinson propose would be more challenging to implement in established community colleges where its mission, relations with other departmental units, available resources, articulation agreements, and accreditors may become barriers to these types of collaborations. However, when favorable conditions exist, such collaborations should be seriously considered given their acknowledged benefits.

Marketization forces that demand higher quality and accountability with fewer resources are sources of additional pressure. For example, state mandates proposing dual-degree programs that allow high school students to simultaneously complete a diploma and earn an associate’s degree are blurring the lines between secondary and postsecondary education. Community college faculty, where dual-degree programs exist, now see a significant portion of their student population come from the high school ranks. This added dimension makes it more challenging for community college faculty as they are (1) inadequately trained to teach high school students and (2) are required to teach these students who may not possess the skills nor the maturity to succeed in a college-level classroom. A.J. Quackenbush from Valencia Community College and Britta Nelson-Bleigh from West Virginia University attempted to find ways to assess their students’ needs to adjust their teaching styles to improve the quality of teaching in the classroom. Unfortunately, this type of research becomes more difficult as community college student populations not only become much more diverse but also younger. Rather than focusing on teaching political science that demands higher academic rigor, critical thinking, and research skills, community college faculty, faced with the reality of teaching underprepared students, focus on teaching civics instead. In addition, the rise of professional development courses tailored to employers’ specific needs is devaluing the liberal arts and social sciences. There is a trend where American government courses, traditionally seen as a mandatory general education class, are now offered as an elective, giving students the ability to bypass taking them. Clearly, the repercussions of not taking American government are grave. It will result in a society where citizens are uninformed and civically unengaged.

Another recurring theme of the track is the pressure that unprepared, underprepared, or disinterested students place on the curriculum and the educational environment. The sheer diversity of the working environments of the track participants was revelatory in this regard. In addition to the aforementioned faculty with high numbers of high school students, there were teachers from predominantly technical or trade colleges where political science is a required course with little or no meaning to the students; educators from colleges where the vast majority of the students cannot meet basic literacy requirements; and, representatives from colleges conforming more closely to a traditional junior college model.

Many students in introductory level political science classes at the community college level are not there by choice. Instead, they often find themselves required to enroll in a government class to further their degree requirements in another area such as education, social work, or communications. Some take the course because political science satisfies a basic social science elective for a technical degree. Most students have no intention of majoring in political science. Most likely, each classroom contains a combination of all these student motivations.

During the special track discussion “Roundtable: Education and Vocational Training” the focus was on making our courses relevant to those students who are required to be there but do not see the importance of the topic to their daily lives. Instructors spoke about giving students in vocational programs assignments concerning policies that would affect those professions. Others mentioned focusing on issues of wide appeal to the specific populations (e.g., hunting rights, marijuana legalization, or the death penalty) to stimulate interest in the government. Other participants talked about the need to continue to focus on the critical thinking skills that learning about government provides and that will be of ultimate value to the students regardless of their chosen professions.

A large percentage of the community college population lacks basic literacy skills necessary for productive engagement in class and the larger political world. Reaching unprepared or underprepared students presents a challenge and an opportunity for innovation as well. Jacquelyn Johnson (Olive-Harvey College, City Colleges of Chicago) teaches in a severely depressed economic area in which the vast majority of the student population is both woefully unprepared for college work and extremely disillusioned with government. Her paper presented a model for active learning aimed at involving her students in voter registration efforts. Her goal for the students was to increase their knowledge of the political system and to encourage them to participate. She had them research and share facts about the election and the candidates and then use those facts to persuade students campus-wide to register to vote. Her focus was on empowering her students to have political opinions. She persuasively demonstrated that students, regardless of their academic and socioeconomic deficits can, and will, think critically on matters that are important to them.

Similarly, Corena White (Tarrant County College, Trinity River campus) honed in on another type of unpreparedness: lack of civic literacy. She addressed the issues that arise in a climate where half of all states do not require a civics class to graduate from high school. She discussed the paradox in which we are in the midst of a digital, information revolution, but great swaths of our students remain politically illiterate and demonstrate very low levels of political efficacy. White finds the mainstream media complicit in this illiteracy due to their focus on infotainment and because the concentration of media ownership results in a situation where the media no longer serve its primary watchdog function. White also sees opportunity. She posits that the increased use of social media (such as blogs) can serve as the tool that empowers students to civic literacy.

TEACHING POLITICAL THEORY AND THEORIES

Kevin M. Cherry, University of Richmond

Daniel Mulcare, Salem State University

Asif Siddiqui, Peking University HSBC Business School

In discussing the pedagogy of political theory, the 2014 participants acknowledged previous—and as yet unresolved—difficulties. These debates covered the tension between pursuing breadth and depth, the assignment of primary versus secondary sources, and the use of excerpts rather than full texts. However, the papers at this year’s track, ably moderated by Michelle Deardorff, largely bypassed these controversies.

Perhaps the strongest consensus that arose was that there is no one right way to teach political theory. Some of this variety arises from particular circumstances—the institution, the personality of the teacher, the kind of students, the level of the course—but these diverse approaches also result from choices made by the instructors. One of the most frequently noted choices that professors have to make is between course goals that emphasize conceptual knowledge and familiarity with important texts and those that promote developing crucial skills, such as critical reading and deep thinking. These are not contradictory goals, of course, but to balance these can be difficult. There can also be, as some participants observed, a danger in trying to make political theory coursework acceptable—whether to students or administrators—by focusing on the acquisition of skills to the exclusion of content. Regardless of the particular objectives of a course, participants also agreed on the importance of designing syllabi and structuring assignments with these goals in mind.

One of the fundamental challenges presenters identified was helping students engage with political theory texts. Participants agreed that students’ in-depth contact with the readings was crucial: part of our task as professors is to help students acquire an enthusiasm for learning. In addition to using sources from popular culture and contemporary and historical case studies, several innovative methods to increase student engagement were proposed. Some of these pedagogies used new technologies and going outside of the classroom, and others involved nothing more than old-fashioned pen and paper. Some presenters, such as Meg Mott and Tom Rozinky, suggested encouraging classroom debate and even conflict as a way of sharpening students’ comprehension of the ideas being studied. Mott and Kristina Haddad argued for incorporating theatrical elements into the study of political theory, which would help students appreciate the plurality of perspectives that political action involves. In a more traditional manner, Benjamin Mitchell advocated the revival of the humanists’ “Commonplace book” model. Through copying and commenting on the most important passages, this method invites students to appropriate the texts and make them their own. Another tension we recognized, then, was between the development of the internal, private life of the mind, and students’ ability to communicate their discoveries to others.

Another key point of debate revolved around the place of political theory with the discipline itself. While participants offered differing opinions on whether theory better fit within the humanities or social sciences (perhaps being the keystone that bridges the two), there was general consensus that theory provides significant contributions to the discipline specifically and the liberal arts in general. As Tim Meinke’s paper on teaching genocide, evil, and politics underscored, many of political science’s fundamental questions can best be approached through the critical examination, evaluation, and definition of concepts. Although political theory does not hold the monopoly on the exploration of key ideas that are central to the discipline—such as democracy, justice, and virtue—it does have a comparative advantage in this realm.

Political theory’s emphasis on reflection, mindfulness, and careful deliberation also serves as a central contribution to the discipline’s efforts to assess student learning. Two different papers, one by Dan Mulcare and the other by Alison Staudinger, explored how Bloom’s taxonomy could be used to examine the extent to which students were engaged in critical thinking. Like in-class debates, theatrical presentations of theoretical concepts, and the “Commonplace book” model, the use of Bloom’s taxonomy invites students to respond to the text’s main themes. These methods also enable instructors to observe students’ critical understanding of often challenging readings and allow faculty to recognize students’ mastery of course concepts as well as students’ ability to develop their learning during the semester. These pedagogical approaches help faculty to recognize with greater frequency those areas where students struggle with the field’s challenging ideas as well as identify the gaps in students’ learning skills. In his paper, Asif Siddiqui noted that instructors should be aware of the threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge that students encounter in theory classes. The pedagogical methods discussed in the working group showcased how contemporary theory instruction recognizes students’ limitations and enables them to overcome these obstacles.

Insofar as political theory courses have different goals, they will use unique modes of assessment. Along with the standard methods associated with the measurement of student work, such as surveys, graded submissions, rubrics, and pre- and posttests, the methods unique to political theory—modeling ideas, critically reflecting on individual practices, and philosophically examining different pedagogical approaches—can also provide the discipline with valuable information about which teaching methods will best serve our diverse student bodies.

When many colleges and universities are reducing budgets, it can be hard to make the case for supporting political theory courses. As the track members discussed, political theory is an integral part of the political science curriculum and can certainly help make citizens more reflective, but it also makes a broader contribution to a liberal arts education by helping students develop the ability to read carefully. A growing number of universities are primarily focusing on improving the writing skills of their students, and therefore a greater amount of limited resources are being put at the disposal of writing centers. What is often overlooked is that other skills, such as reading and speaking, are also central to the students’ academic success. In fact, reading, speaking, and writing are closely connected. Reading helps teach sentence structure, proper use of words, vocabulary, and numerous other important items. Speaking about and defending ideas also help the development of critical thinking and organizational skills as well as filtering out ideas that cannot stand up to scrutiny. Close reading, the main staple of political theory, can play a major role in developing all of these competencies. This contribution of political theory needs to be communicated to institutional leaders as well as to students: as political theorists, we must show why close reading is worth the extra time required to do it.

Looking to future considerations for teaching political theory, we felt that effective student assessment techniques are beneficial to educators in political theory; therefore, it is important to develop rigorous yet useful ways to evaluate students’ work. Although well-designed examinations, among other assessments, can test grasp of concepts, it is necessary to find ways to better measure our promotion of deep learning. For instance, the teaching methods discussed during our track highlight that theory professors continue to use pedagogies that allow for an immediate awareness of students’ understanding of the material, and these low-stakes opportunities to direct student learning proved to be a unifying theme of our discussions. Indeed, political theory—with its emphasis on self-reflection, critical reasoning, and careful mapping of an author’s argument—is well suited to assist in gauging meta-cognitive development among students. As an example, as instructors focus more on the implementation and evaluation of explicitly stated goals and objectives for each course, theory’s methods of inquiry can assist in the process of connecting our assignments to our anticipated outcomes. Theory, then, is not only central to the development of critical reading, writing, and verbal skills, but it also provides essential tools to the assessment of them.

Political theory also highlights that assessment can only go so far. After all, one of the essential components of political philosophy is to examine those areas that cannot be easily quantified or measured, and theory has a role to play in challenging the potential over-emphasis on observable outcomes. Although well-constructed alumni surveys could reveal some essential information in this regard, the lasting effects of teaching may not be easily traced. (An alternative means of assessment we discussed was peer evaluation of teaching, which can help us communicate content to students more effectively.) As we continue to consider our contributions to the discipline and the academy, in future theory tracks, it may prove beneficial to examine our role in the assessment movement. While our conversations touched on the ways that theorists offer unique insights to the methods that could be used to evaluate students’ progress, theory also plays a role in the critical interrogation of the assessment movement’s purpose and efficacy. An interesting and necessary jumping off point in future discussions may revolve around whether assessment provides us with important tools or serves as a way to further negatively limit our field.

TEACHING RESEARCH METHODS

Mary P. McGuire, State University of New York, Cortland

A series of themes emerged from the presentations and discussions in the track on Teaching Research Methods (TRM). TRM members focused on a set of guiding questions from which the themes emerged: What should the content of an introductory course in research methods contain? How can technology be used to strengthen student learning in research methods? How can the fear of, and difficulties in the ability to grasp, math, which plagues students, be balanced with what needs to be taught in political science research methods? When in their undergraduate careers should students take a research methods course? How can librarians’ role be enhanced in the interplay between methodology and research techniques?

The discussions on content were broad and ranged from the general to the particular. They were, of course, informed by the papers presented. General themes included the basic concept of corroborating causal inferences (Dopp 2014) and the balance between quantitative and qualitative methods (McGuire 2014). While the particular topics focused on specific approaches, such as scaling analysis (Kilburn 2014) and the use of Excel’s statistical capabilities (Guo Reference Guo2014).

Discussions regarding common student fears of math balanced the need to teach students that learning is hard and requires significant effort on their parts, against the need to encourage them to overcome frustration and learn a valuable tool. Track members were interested in helping students realize the value of understanding statistics and other methodological approaches for their careers, as well as, for their personal roles as consumers of information. Whereas the papers did not specifically address this theme, it was a recurrent theme across discussions. The Lau-Bertrand (2014) paper informed this discussion by considering the impact of instructor continuity on student learning and satisfaction across research methods courses.

Panel members considered when in students’ undergraduate careers introduction to research methods was most appropriate. On the one hand, there was concern raised that an introduction late in the curriculum would mean that there was little chance for the skills acquired to be reinforced and that the importance of methodology to political science would be underappreciated. On the other hand, early courses that take advantage of students’ interest in politics itself can have the advantage of helping students to see why it is worth their effort to take on the task of learning methodology.

The group devised three recommendations for research methods in political science based on their discussions at the meeting. First, research methods should include more than statistics. Methods should be more broadly understood to include the basics of finding reliable data and literature within the vast sea of easily accessed, but often suspect, data and information available to students through the Internet. Students should learn to discern what material does and what material does not meet the standards for inclusion in academic political science research. In this area the interplay between librarians and political science faculty can be extremely important. The idea that research methods should be more than statistics also meant that students need to be introduced to a vast array of methodology that has informed political science research. In addition to statistics, students need exposure to a variety of qualitative methodologies, such as participant observation and content analysis that have been important throughout the history of the discipline. They should also be exposed to approaches such as scaling, which relies on numbers to create powerful visual displays.

Second, the teaching and learning of research methods should not be limited to a course, or a set of courses, but should be taught across the political science curriculum. Ideally, instructors within each area of political science would teach and reinforce methodological approaches within their classes. Three papers highlight approaches to this. Guo experimented with teaching students to use international statistical data in his Introduction to International Relations course while Auerbach (Reference Auerbach2014) developed internship opportunities in which students’ primary internship responsibilities revolved around conducting and analyzing research in the field. Both of these courses required students to use statistical methodology—in classes that were not primarily methodology courses. Arbour and Ackerman, in researching the ways in which students were taught to find, use, and evaluate secondary research sources, found several ways in which course instructors incorporate research methods from annotated bibliographies to reviews of academic journal articles. Each of these examples demonstrates different ways in which the recommendation that research methods be infused in the political science curriculum can be met. However, beyond the mechanics of assuring that methodology was an ongoing part of undergraduate political science education, members of the track asserted that political science departments should articulate where research methods were being taught within their curriculum and exactly what methods students were learning before earning their undergraduate degrees.

The third recommendation was that political science departments should consider the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of delivery modalities for methodology courses and content. As students learn differently, it is important that the way in which difficult material is offered not be limited to a single modality. Both the Ault (Reference Ault2014) and the Daigle and Stuvland (Reference Daigle and Stuvland2014) papers examined a variety of teaching platforms. Ault concentrated on online approaches to delivering material. The concept of filming “chunks,” short lessons in which the instructor demonstrated a concept, that students could watch and re-watch as needed, stood out as a technique particularly well suited to teaching difficult material in a way that would hold students’ attention. Due to their brevity, students would have an opportunity to control how much repetition they required to grasp a concept. Daigle and Stuvland compared the outcomes of students in large, small, and online classes. Using the vast variety of delivery modalities offered to instructors through technology is an opportunity to increase the number of students who succeed in learning methodology.

The 2014 Teaching and Learning Conference afforded members of the TRM track the opportunity to share their research, observations, and successes, as well as their concerns and difficulties. It resulted in three days of productive and supportive discussions and ultimately led to the recommendations listed here. The space to focus on questions of teaching in political science with colleagues provided track members with the ability to contribute to the development of best practices in teaching methodology.