A Crucible Moment

As noted, much of the track's conversations this year focused on the findings of A Crucible Moment. Released only weeks before the conference, this report details the growing crisis in civic education in the nation and urges institutions of higher education to (a) promote a civic ethos on their campuses; (b) incorporate civic literacy in the core curriculum; (c) include civic inquiry in all degree programs; and (d) to encourage civic action through community partnerships. As Dr. Musil explained, the report calls for a fundamental transformation of American higher education so that civic engagement is no longer seen as a by-product of political science teaching or the responsibility of a single campus center or office—which, unfortunately, is still often the case on American campuses—but rather as a core institutional mission that is embedded throughout a college or university's curriculum, cocurricular programming, core values, and reward systems. Institutions of higher education, the report asserts, should take broad affirmative steps to ensure that students of all majors and career trajectories understand the importance of democratic citizenship and civic engagement. Further, institutions should demonstrate their commitment to civic learning by rewarding “faculty, staff, and students for research, scholarship, and engagement that expand civic knowledge and that promote committed investment in the common good” (National Taskforce on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement 2012, 48). This ground-breaking report, track participants agreed, marks a significant contribution to the literature not only for the forceful case it makes about the impact of civic engagement activities on student development, but also for its provision of a broad array of concrete and practical ideas about how faculty and administrators alike might garner greater institutional support for such activities. Track participants enthusiastically endorsed its vision and proscriptions.

Connecting Civic Engagement

The following day, track participants discussed various courses and programs that purposefully integrated civic engagement into distance-learning environments and significant research projects. Additionally, the track participants examined examples of how faculty and academic departments can implement civic engagement programs with unique student populations and within distinct community and institutional settings. Robbin Smith, for example, described an innovative partnership that she developed at Central Connecticut State University that pairs university students with seventh-grade student at a local middle school to enhance both sets of students' awareness of civic needs and governmental processes. Aida Koci of South East European University likewise discussed a teacher-training program recently implemented in Macedonia that uses various civic engagement strategies to raise awareness of the concerns of special-needs populations. In a session entitled “Empowering Students,” Bridget Hynes (University of Denver) and Dick Simpson (University of Illinois-Chicago) presented two useful models of how faculty members can incorporate students into scholarly work aimed at advancing human rights and exposing governmental corruption. Finally, in a Saturday afternoon session on technology and civic participation, Jeff Dense of Eastern Oregon University and Ivelin Sardamov of American University in Bulgaria provided two distinct visions of the Internet's utility as a vehicle for student engagement.

On Sunday morning, track participants wrapped up deliberations with a session on “Measuring Success.” Karen Brinkley and Kelly Ellenburg presented the results of a benchmarking study conducted by the University of Tennessee about best practices in civic education. In the other presentation, Nanette Levinson of American University explored the ways in which practitioners of civic engagement pedagogies can inform—and likewise be informed by—scholarly programs aimed at enhancing social entrepreneurship, social justice, and human rights.

Discussion and Lessons Learned

These presentations triggered wide-ranging discussions among track participants throughout the weekend conference. Perhaps most notably, participants enthusiastically and unanimously endorsed both the empirical findings of A Crucible Moment and its call for a significant reconsideration of the role that colleges and universities play in maintaining the health of our civil society. The participants unanimously agreed that A Crucible Moment deserves the increased exposure and discussion that a broader organizational endorsement from APSA would bring. Accordingly, the track agreed to ask the Political Science Education Section of the APSA to both embrace the report's call to action at the upcoming APSA meeting in New Orleans and also to act as necessary to help “get the word out” about the report's findings to the larger discipline.

In addition, track members shared a range of practical ideas about how the discussions during the conference in Washington can serve as stepping stones for individual and collective concrete action on home campuses. Among other ideas, members exchanged views about how technology can be leveraged to create shared spaces for collaboration, provide instructional resources and support for faculty and enhance classroom inclusiveness—particularly for vulnerable students who do not have a voice in campus life. Also, the group explored the benefits of faculty collaboration both with campus partners in student life and with off-campus partners—such as organizations focusing on social entrepreneurship—to promote the centrality of civic engagement within higher education. Furthermore, the group discussed various ways in which methods courses might be used as the locus for civic engagement scholarship within political science curricula. Several track members also provided insights into how political scientists in university leadership positions can better leverage their institutional authority to draw attention to the civic engagement goals articulated in A Crucible Moment.

While sharing these ideas, the group also struggled with at least three fundamental issues. First, is a mandate by faculty for students to engage in civic activities—presumably in the name of enhancing democratic citizenship—itself antidemocratic? As some track participants emphasized, a compulsory civic education component in a course may, inadvertently, undermine the democratic lesson for students by denying those students the ability to act autonomously. Second, what role should civic engagement-oriented education play in emerging democracies and in those societies' efforts to build civic capital? Although scholars point out declining levels of civic participation in the United States and need for our institutions to address a national “civic recession,” political scientists have too often neglected the role of civic engagement in the international realm. Some noted that civic engagement may be even more important in democratizing countries because civic knowledge and the civic skills, attitudes, and values to effectively challenge governmental decision-makers are essential for the development of a democratic citizenry. Third, in an educational environment marked by declining levels of community engagement, rapid innovations in technology and increasing diversity among students, how do we reach out to students and “meet them where they are”? How do we get students excited about democratic participation and convey to them the importance of engagement work? How do we embed engagement in the college and university experience such that it is not course-rooted, but is found throughout the curriculum and the campus? What are the pros and cons of distance learning in this area?

The Value and Challenge of Intensive Experiences in Civic Engagement

One of the most profound advantages of civic engagement pedagogy is the potential to have a lifelong impact on the students involved. Students may not immediately realize the importance of the experience; in fact, they may initially resent the level of commitment and work it entails. Yet, the engagement, if embedded in a well-designed course or internship experience, will leave a lasting memory and develop civic skills upon which the student may draw for a lifetime. Community-based learning experiences demonstrate the power of ordinary citizens—the difference that one person, or a committed group of people—can make in the life of another person, a community, or a political system.

Despite the advantages of civic engagement pedagogy, a community-based, experiential learning model is not without its challenges. This is particularly true when building sustained relationships to existing community organizations to promote long-term solutions to community-defined problems. Challenges include student, faculty, campus, and community commitment.

Getting students to “buy in” to community-based, experiential learning projects is a hurdle that must be negotiated carefully: not all students will engage in or participate equally. If this issue is not anticipated or planned for adequately, a shallow and relatively meaningless experience, and a failed project, could result. Clear communication through course listings, syllabi, and instructor expectations help to remedy this problem.

Getting faculty to “buy in” to civic engagement pedagogy is another hurdle that must be negotiated carefully. The type of deep learning experiences needed to sustain civic engagement over the long term takes an enormous about of faculty time and energy. Developing a course that meets departmental learning outcomes while providing authentic hands-on learning experiences for students requires planning and partnerships. Because of the time involved and the lack of rewards associated with this type of commitment, many untenured faculty members cannot afford to devote resources necessary to provide meaningful civic learning experiences for students.

One of the challenges facing faculty wanting to engage in high impact experiential learning continues to be institutional support. Colleges and universities can provide a substantial support for civic engagement by building intracampus, intercampus, and campus-community partnerships necessary to sustain service learning and promote the scholarship of engagement. Campus relationships should be developed and deepened with business, nonprofit, and governmental organizations. Campus-community partnerships can provide a path for education to “reclaim its fundamental civic and democratic mission” (AAC&U, A Crucible Moment). However, this cannot happen without an institutional commitment, including designated staff or faculty time. Furthermore, campuses must recognize the value of this type of learning and provide professional incentives (e.g., teaching awards, curriculum development grants, release time) as well as rewriting promotion and tenure guidelines to recognize and reward service-learning courses, civic engagement pedagogy, the scholarship of teaching and learning, and the scholarship of engagement. Colleges and universities, as well as departments, need to create a civic engagement identity or culture that goes beyond a statement of purpose to include degree requirements, professional development opportunities, and faculty rewards.

As an association APSA can ease the burden on faculty by providing comprehensive support for those wanting to promote deep learning and civic leadership through high impact pedagogies. APSA has already begun taking steps in this direction. The APSA's forthcoming publication of a civic engagement monograph will provide opportunities for political scientists at all types of institutions to learn more about the theory, practice, and assessment of civic engagement. A repository of syllabi and assessment tools is still needed and could be developed as part of the on-line supplement to the forthcoming monograph. Continued support for the Journal of Political Science Education is key in highlighting research-based best practices and providing an outlet for future educational research. The small ‘n’ problem plagues this type of research can be addressed through intercampus research. The Intercampus Consortium for SoTL Research, proposed by Elizabeth Bennion and Cherri Strachan at the 2012 APSA Teaching and Learning Conference should be supported by the APSA, allowing teacher-scholars nationwide to collaborate on high-quality research projects that aid our understanding of the most effective ways to promote deep learning and lifelong engagement. The APSA could play a vital role as an association in advertising the Consortium, providing meeting and training space, and providing financial/grant support to those gathering cross campus data.

What We Discussed

Most of the presentations and discussions during the meetings emphasized the unique challenges instructors encounter when they teach students conflict and conflict resolution. As Tina Mavrikos-Adamou (“Which Method is the Right One? Analyzing the Numerous Tools and Techniques for Conflict Resolution”) emphasized, “one of the first hurdles educators encounter with students in the classroom is to get them to understand the complexity of conflict resolution.” Thus, faculty who teach conflict need to convey to students the multidimensional nature of conflict while making conflict seem less abstract to students.

Also, teaching students about conflict resolution requires instructors to introduce students to the multiple approaches and strategies used by a diverse set of actors to resolve conflicts. Instructors also need to help students understand that there are no easy solutions to conflicts and that there is no one-size-fits-all formula for achieving peace. Adding to the unique challenges of teaching conflict and conflict resolution is that most students know very little about international conflicts. Or as Jeannie Grussendorf (“Teaching Peace When Students Don't Know about War”) put it, “it is difficult to teach students about conflict resolution and peace when they know so little about war. Instructors must therefore balance the need to provide sufficient information to students about particular conflicts with the need to teach them theory of conflict analysis and conflict resolution.” The most effective way of accomplishing these goals, participants agreed, was the use of active and engaged teaching methods, including case studies, simulations, role plays, games, virtual history, and service learning.

The track participants discussed using simulations and role plays in teaching students conflict and conflict resolution. Most agreed that there was a close relationship between course content and the methods used to convey that content to students. Simulations and role plays provide students with the opportunity to immerse themselves directly in the dynamics of conflict and conflict resolution on a theoretical level. Also, participants noted that when designing role plays and simulations, the instructor needs to be clear about the learning objectives of the exercise. In particular, is the exercise designed to deepen students' knowledge of a particular conflict, to allow them to explore particular theoretical concepts, to improve their understanding of a particular category of conflicts, or to deepen their sense of empathy for people in conflict situations? A number of participants noted that one of the key difficulties in constructing effective role plays is figuring out how to conduct these given the time and space constraints of a classroom while avoiding simplifying the roles and scenarios so that these remain instructive and help students understand the complexity of conflict. A poorly designed simulation or role play rather than helping students break down stereotypes they have about conflict may contribute to deepening these very stereotypes.

In her presentations Bidisha Biswas (“Teaching International Crisis through Online Simulations”) discussed how simulations can help students tackle the biases they bring to the analysis of conflict dynamics. One of the conclusions she drew from teaching international security and international political economy was that students' previous, fragmentary knowledge of a particular conflict and selective learning bias resulted in students readily drawing on stereotypes to make sense of new material. Simulations that allow students to explore conflicts through role play provide students with an opportunity to more actively engage with the material, break down stereotypes, and allow them to develop a greater awareness of how their emotions or prior assumptions shape their understanding of conflict.

Neal Carter (“The Seromakran Simulation: An Introduction to Multiple Forms of Justice”) discussed how simulations can help students explore issues of justice and to better understand how structural features of a community shape the understanding of issues and the choices that a community makes. A simulation allows students to experience first hand how institutional context and group size affects and constrains their actions. Students thus personally experience dynamics of conflict by participation in the simulation. Both presentations generated a lively discussion about the best ways of designing simulations and role plays that allow students to understand the complexity of conflict, break down cultural barriers and stereotypes, and develop critical thinking as well as empathy. Most participants agreed that one of the biggest challenges in designing conflict simulations is avoiding replicating biases and cultural prejudices.

The group also discussed the use of games in the classroom and the differences and tradeoffs between simulations and games. As Nicholas Vaccaro (“Moving beyond 2 × 2 Table: Integrating Interactive ‘Prisoner's Dilemma’ and ‘Chicken’ Games into International Relations Classes”) pointed out, because games are shorter and players do not have defined roles, students explore theoretical concepts in a more abstract way. Although a simulation provides the space to explore nuances of a conflict and allows for more realism, a game can be more easily brought into different classrooms and, by stripping away of cultural variables and provide an opportunity for students to explore conflict dynamics that might be common across cultures.

Another approach to teaching conflict and conflict resolution the group discussed was the use of virtual history. This method, Bruce Gilley (“Teaching the Causes of the Iraq War: The Virtual History Conference”) argued, allows students to delve more deeply into the complexities of conflict. It also provides students with the opportunity to get away from determinism when exploring conflict dynamics and encourages them to explore “what if” questions and as well as issues of causality. Such an approach develops students' analytical and critical thinking skills and strengthens “the ability of students to challenge their own assumptions and consider causes they had previously ignored.”

Another theme that emerged during the presentations and discussions was that teaching students about conflict is closely linked to empowering students to be more directly engaged with their local communities as well as with global issues, building their capacity, and giving them the tools to approach understanding and resolving conflicts in more constructive ways. Sandi DiMola and Allyson Lowe (“The Use of Service-Learning Model in the Teaching of Conflict Studies: The Lawrenceville Dialogue Project”) argued that many, if not most, students live in contested spaces yet do not know how to effectively deal with the conflicts they encounter. Service-learning courses provide students with the opportunity to learn how to understand conflicts, teaches them how conflict is part of a democratic society, and how to navigate conflicts and resolve them more constructively. Through engagement with communities, service learning allows students to experience the complexity of conflict in ways difficult to replicate in the traditional classroom. It also fosters their sense of themselves as potential agents of change rather than passive observers of conflict. Finally, it gives them a deeper understanding of the complexities and difficulties of resolving conflicts.

Track participants agreed that when instructors design service learning courses or course components, they need to be mindful that they do not treat the community in which they will work as a laboratory rat. An essential component of a service learning course focused on conflict and conflict resolution is predicated on prior, deep relationships between the instructor or the university/college and the community in which the work will take place. For the experience to be beneficial to the students, the community needs to welcome the students and to see them as contributing positively to the community.

Finally, the group explored different methods of assessing whether active learning approaches had the anticipated learning outcomes. Preliminary data suggested that such activities as simulations, role plays, and service learning are an effective method for developing students analytical and critical thinking skills, and achieving more specific learning outcomes such as tackling preexisting biases. Participants noted, however, that assessing the impact of these methods on developing students' empathy can be more difficult.

Lessons Learned and Conclusions

Participants agreed on these takeaways that emerged from the discussions:

• • Engaged/active learning approaches are especially useful when teaching conflict and conflict resolution. There is a close link between content of what is taught and teaching methods.

• • Emotions and empathy play a key role in teaching conflict and conflict resolution.

• • Teaching conflict and conflict resolution also teaches students about crossing cultural barriers and addresses existing biases.

• • Teaching about the complexity of conflict, showing its multiple layers and deconstructing it, is important.

• • Teaching students how to be engaged, making conflict less abstract, building students' capacity, and giving them the tools to foster their sense of themselves as agents of change is important.

What We Do Well

We describe different content approaches to the curriculum and explore balances between skills and content. We offer clarifications of the processes of teaching within our discipline to a wider student audience and investigate what students learn. Political science is in a unique position to offer adaptive learning because we teach in a context that has real people and real situations that change before our students' eyes within days or weeks. In these learning environments, we have different approaches including problem-based learning (Maurer and Neuhold Reference Maurer and Neuhold2012), startling content of United States involvement of East Timor (Knehans Reference Knehans2012), political humor (Glazier Reference Glazier2012), or argument-based instruction (Wu Reference Wu2012). Recent work has also helped us to identify two elements of a common core—American politics courses and a global course either as a comparative or international relations focus (Gentry and Richards Reference Gentry and Richards2012).

Within general education and core curriculum of research on teaching and learning the type that we currently conduct is descriptive, process oriented, evaluation or assessment, reflection and change.

Where We Can Improve

As a discipline, we have been careful not to advocate for a particular common core and have worked to appreciate diversity. However, if we cannot identify a common core for all students of political science, then are we doing a disservice to our students? Other social science disciplines, such as sociology and economics, have articulated a common core while political science continues to be challenged with identifying what courses are necessary to our discipline and which modes of investigation are valuable to our research. Although diversity is valuable to the field we need to acknowledge potential implications on our students and our discipline. Through further discussions of common core standards we believe that we can identify what is common and what is the core of our discipline.

Our research within the common core needs to improve, both qualitatively and quantitatively. We need to move from describing to actually measuring our teaching and students' learning. Specifically, we need to collect better data on the effectiveness of different teaching techniques measured by student knowledge and skills. We know that students would prefer a passive learning style where they are given PowerPoint notes and are provided study guides. But what students prefer is not what we know is best for learning. As professors, however, what we consider as “best” might also not always be conducive to greater student learning and engagement (Lindsay Reference Lindsay2012). Therefore it is important for us to create a more open line of communication between students and professors related to learning styles, as well as promote enhanced teaching and learning research.

Moreover, we need to think in terms longer than a single course and look more at a process model for cumulative effect on student learning and student thought and action.

Where Do We Go From Here?

We have many objectives for the common core within our departments, but we also need more cohesion between courses and institutions. Identifying what content we want students to know and what skills are essential to any political science course is necessary if we are to move forward. We must identify the foundational elements within the discipline. The General Education/Core Curriculum track is where we share these common objectives and discuss differences among faculty about our individual objectives within courses and our objectives for our students. From this year's conference we have tread ground of our previous General Education/Core Curriculum tracks, but we also moved forward in our research to discuss how we teach and with a more critical eye toward student resistance to the challenges of learning.

Ultimately, although there are often more questions than answers, it is imperative that we begin these conversations on what constitutes the “core” of political science education. Only if we identify areas of agreement and disagreement and begin making progress in categorizing and presenting different approaches of teaching, learning, and assessment can political science departments be more engaged participants in the public and legislative discussions of higher education requirements, funding, and expectations.

In addition to clarifying the “how” and “what” in political science education, we need to better articulate the “why.” We must be reflective practitioners of political science. We must advocate for political science as essential to liberal learning because it is uniquely able to train a better educated citizenry that can engage in the processes of politics (Schneider and Buehler Reference Schneider and Buehler2012). We believe that a Task Force for the Common Core is an imperative that we can no longer ignore.

Difficulty within the Discipline Defining Diversity

Throughout the meeting, we were constantly reminded that the term diversity entails much more than textbook interpretations. Often, we use a narrow definition of diversityto neatly compartmentalize multidimensional students (and others) into predictable categories (race, class, gender, and sexual orientation). Diversity can be defined in a variety of ways. Diversity aims to broaden and deepen both the educational experience and the scholarly environment as students and faculty learn to interact effectively within a pluralistic society.

Diversity is designed to increase educational equity for all students. In this context, diversity is a commitment to recognizing and appreciating the variety of characteristics that make individuals unique in an atmosphere that promotes and celebrates individual and collective achievement. Examples of these characteristics are age, cognitive style, culture, disability (mental, learning, physical), economic background, education, ethnicity, gender identity, geographic background, language(s) spoken, marital/partnered status, physical appearance, political affiliation, race, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation.

For many faculty who were taught and teach from a monocultural perspective reflecting a single norm of thought and knowledge base considered to be universally valid, the prospect of any curriculum transformation, diversity infusion, and or multicultural pedagogy can be extremely unsettling. To gain support from those who are lukewarm about infusing diversity into political science education, educators must reframe the issue of diversity into a broader and less controversial perspective—for instance, community and civic engagement. These attempts should not be interpreted as co-optation; rather, it should be understood in terms of a practical opportunity to increase interaction and awareness of others. Also, with a better understanding of diversity we can achieve the following:

1. 1. Diversity enriches the educational experience. We learn from those whose experiences, beliefs, and perspectives are different from our own, and these lessons can be taught best in a richly diverse, intellectual, and social environment.

2. 2. Diversity promotes personal growth—and a healthy society. It challenges stereotyped preconceptions; it encourages critical thinking; and it helps students learn to communicate effectively with people of varied backgrounds.

3. 3. Diversity strengthens communities and the workplace. Education within a diverse setting prepares students to become good citizens in an increasingly complex, pluralistic society; it fosters mutual respect and teamwork; and it helps build communities whose members are judged by the quality of their character and their contributions.

In addition to philosophical discussions on defining the boundaries of diversity, the group also focused on pedagogical issues examining syllabi, teaching techniques, lecture/discussion formats, and online platforms to create the best possible learning environment in which students would feel motivated, comfortable about their identities, and connected with other students.

Pedagogical Issues Teaching Difficult Subject Matter

Teaching difficult subject matter is a challenging exercise for most faculty members. One approach to deal with uneasy, awkward, or unpleasant subject matter is to create a safe and healthy teaching and learning environment within the classroom (an environment of equality and trust works best). A second approach is to discuss uncomfortable topics in a more comfortable manner (use of vernacular language helps students to identify). A third approach is “broadening the scope” and allow for impartiality to emerge (expand the range of how we characterize “oppressed” groups). Faculty must free themselves from their narrow definition of oppressed groups without trivializing the experiences of the oppressed group's members. For example, many focus on the plight of a single group, such as African Americans, to teach about racism, discrimination, and intolerance. However, historically speaking, we can and should include Chinese, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Latinos and others to broaden the range and allow for impartiality to emerge. Faculty must take into account the twenty-first century classroom that includes students of varying racial hues, ethnic persuasions, income levels, and lifestyle preferences. Building and maintaining a safe and healthy teaching and learning environment is a valuable asset when faculty grapple with teaching difficult subject matter. However, faculty and students alike, share the ultimate responsibility of community building. We also make the following recommendations when teaching difficult subject matter:

1. 1. Faculty should emerge themselves in the subject matter for purposes of content reliability and validity. A firm grasp of the literature, key concepts, and core ideas helps faculty to deal with difficult themes and questions.

2. 2. Faculty should get feedback from colleagues when they decide to engage difficult subject matter for teaching and learning purposes. Colleagues may have an approach and or method that may prove to be helpful.

3. 3. Use the learning-centered approach; focus on how the learner will use the information as opposed to the information itself. In this instance, smaller learning communities (group exercises) are useful to help students feel comfortable in sharing their ideas and responding to the ideas of others.

Inclusiveness and the Role of Teacher—Facilitator

First, we have to remind ourselves that we are facilitators of teaching and learning, rather than dictators of teaching and learning. Gone are the days when it was considered the norm to give students arbitrary and subjective assessments and impose one-sided lectures on them. The transition from dictator to facilitator is not easy; many difficult tasks await professors in creating a healthy learning environment. First, we have to discern our audienceand adjust our pedagogy in a way to build trust and a sense of community. A healthy learning environment is inclusive and allows for learning objectives to be met. Also, a healthy learning environment is one in which facilitators allow students to experience uncomfortable issues in the most comfortable way and voluntarily acknowledge that identity differences may indeed translate into privileges or a lack thereof in society. For example, have students participate in the Privilege WalkFootnote ¹ (walking through privileges). Have students line up and ask them to take one step forward if they can affirm particular statements about unearned privilege stemming from their gender, race, class, religious orientation, and other ascribed characteristics. This activity visibly illustrates that some students are more privileged than others while helping the privileged realize their unearned statuses without feeling attacked.

Second, as facilitators of learning, we also have to confront the scholar–practitioner demarcation in ourselves and put aside esoteric textbooks at times, taking students off campus, or using unconventional resources to make them feel connected to content and ideas that students may not fully grasp solely through textbooks. For example, when studying voting and elections, taking students to inner-city polling stations (to volunteer, collect data, or even vote) helps facilitate what happens in a participatory democracy. Civic and community engagement activities are practical efforts to increase our awareness of and about others.

Our role as facilitators is not to impose our perspective on race, class, gender, or other issues related to identity differences and privilege, but to enable students to learn and reflect on society's barriers and enablers. These tasks are what facilitators are expected to do—namely, challenging students to think, feel, and experience diversity rather than imposing views on them that are rarely value neutral.

Recommendations

The DIE track participants reaffirmed last year's commitment to adopting the Diversity in Political Science Education (DIPSE) Action Plan (see below) and added a new item. In the next few years, we expect to begin the following projects:

1. 1. Create a DIPSE support website: In the past, we have considered creating a website to facilitate DIE education; however, the plan has not yet materialized. The proposed website will be consistent with several APSA organized sections that already have posted syllabi and, in addition, include links to video clips, simulations, and annotated bibliographies to assist professors interested in infusing diversity into their curricula.

2. 2. Offer a teaching and learning conference workshop: We would like to directly communicate with those who have questions about revising their curriculum to include DIE issues.

3. 3. Offer a short course at the APSA Annual Meeting: We plan to develop a short course in teaching DIE issues.

4. 4. Publish APSA booklets on DIE “How to” series: This project is an extension of our website project, workshop, and short course. The series is designed to offer practical approaches for creating DIE courses. Topics may include, but are not limited to, race and ethnicity, LGBT, social class, religious orientation, intersectionality and global perspectives. It will result in an APSA book series commensurate with publications on assessment and civic engagement.

5. 5. Organized a standing working group to allow for open dialogue about diversity, inclusiveness, and equality issues and to encourage research collaboration(s) when feasible.

Acquisition of Unique Skills

In the first paper presented in this track, “Teaching a Select Triad in Politics and Government,” Ronald Petitte focused on the chaotic nature of politics, and thus the need for students to respond to the ever-changing nature of the political environment. As a result, Petitte created a triad of courses within American government, based primarily on the real-world electoral calendar. Each of the courses emphasizes collaborative learning, critical thinking, and effective communication. Students work in groups, but each student takes on the roles of presidential candidates and members of the president's cabinet (depending on the course). Students engage in oral communication (usually through debates or confirmation hearings) and respond to simulation experiences through a reflective journal. One of the most effective tools Petitte used in his courses is assigning students roles of individuals with whom they fundamentally disagree politically, and thus forcing the students to understand their political enemies, while refining their own political beliefs.

Such oral communication and critical thinking skills were further examined by Peter Bergerson, in “Politics and Public Budget: Agency and Legislative Decision-making Strategies,” and Arthur H. Auerbach, in his analysis, “United States Supreme Court Confirmation Simulation: Learning through the Process of Experience.” In Bergerson's upper-level course on public budgeting, each student defends the budget request of a specific department or agency in front of a committee, receiving questions from both supporters and opponents. In this high-stakes environment, students must not only understand the process of the budget, but the strategies used by administrators. Similarly, Auerbach uses a Supreme Court confirmation simulation, in which students take on roles of senators or Supreme Court nominees and research the policies necessary to understand the specific beliefs/values of the corresponding roles. These simulations help students learn valuable content as well as develop substantial oral communication and critical thinking skills.

Practical Understanding of Political Processes

In addition to the unique skills acquired through simulations, track participants noted students' ability to understand the practical side of politics through simulations. For example, in “Balancing the Books: Assessing the Impact of a Federal Budget Deliberative Simulation,” Susan E. Orr and Dena Levy tested the use of budgeting simulations in general education classes. They sought to address the question, “how do you teach something inherently boring to a class of nonmajors?” They conducted a pretest and posttest analysis within a test group and a control group. Although the findings were inconclusive regarding the material students learned through the courses, students in the simulation course (which examined eight policy proposals over the semester) thoroughly examined the budget process in ways a standard course might not allow.

Using legislative and judicial simulations, Rosalyn Cooperman (“Lawmaking and Law Interpreting in the Land of Oz”) explained that such practical understanding of political processes occurs in small-class simulations as well. Students create their own “member of Congress” profile in this legislative simulation and experience the bill-writing/amending/voting process first-hand. Students gained a thorough understanding of the legislative process; particularly the complexities of group decision-making in a highly polarized environment. Multiple mini-moot courts were offered in Cooperman's judicial simulation class. Again, students reported that they gained a greater understanding of what courts do and how they arrive at their decisions.

Margaret Tseng's work (“Civic Engagement and the Millennial Generation”) with high school students during a seven-day summer program in Washington, DC, also highlights the ability of students to learn the political processes; most notably with regards to elections. Students are divided among political parties and members of the media. Tseng's work highlights the potential opportunity that increased student understanding of political processes could spur greater civic engagement.

Technological Enhancements to Simulations

A third pattern evident in this track is how simulations can be inherently tied to the continued technological advances that help engage students in a lecture-based course in new ways. Daniel Smith (“iNcourt: Using a Virtual Supreme Court to Enhance the Traditional Simulation Experience”) worked with his university's Center for Innovation and Technology in Education office to create a virtual Supreme Court site named iNcourt. A web-based approach would further enhance some of the already positive experiences found in other simulation courses. In this course, students create their own Supreme Court Justice profile, file mini-petitions, determine whether cases will be granted certiorari, and ultimately determine the Court's docket. This website has spurred increased visualization of the process, as well as increased student interaction outside of the class.

Similarly, John Wilkerson (“Get out of the Way! How a Simulation Changed How I Think about Teaching, Turned on my Students, and Ruined My Other Classes”) has developed a legislative simulation that allows instructors to engage students directly, even in very large classes (100 students or more). This online simulation includes all aspects of a legislature (such as committees, clerks, and policy advocates), and students creates their own district to represent. The students draft a personal statement, sponsor bills, form caucuses, and engage in the bill-writing/amending/voting process. Wilkerson described how this technological tool has allowed students to better understand the systems-based approach to the legislative process and has significantly increased collaborative learning; specifically the ability of students to benefit from one another's knowledge, skills, and strategic mistakes.

Recommendations

Based on the eight papers presented and the discussions that followed, participants concluded that while the benefits of such simulations are immense, instructors need to continue to develop appropriate assessment tools to ensure the credibility of simulations. Track members identified the need to construct specific educational objectives, to develop specific roles within the simulations that are built on the educational objectives created, and to establish a clear set of procedures for students to follow to prevent collective action problems.

Well-defined and measurable educational objectives are crucial when developing simulations. One track participant (Cooperman) described this as designing “targeted simulations” with educational goals in mind. With the continual demand for assessment of course content objectives, creators of simulations must determine what students ought to know after they leave the class and how knowledge will be measured. Ideally, instructors should map course objectives to the simulation activities to ensure credibility within the class.

Based on the educational objectives created, instructors should be precise in creating participant roles within the simulation. Clearly defined roles help because such roles help to meet learning outcomes outside of the traditional class setting. Additionally, such roles place students in the shoes of real-world actors and help them learn more about political actors, institutions, and processes.

Track participants agreed that careful procedural guidelines are necessary to ensure all students are actively engaged in the simulation, and no students are taking advantage of the work output of others in the class. Therefore, some students need to take on administrative or research assistant roles to promote active learning among all participants. Ideally, in smaller classes, students can participate in multiple roles, which allows the instructor to further determine each student's comprehension of content objectives.

Ultimately, track participants concluded that while simulations present challenges for instructors to maintain academic integrity, the results are worth the additional time, effort, and resources used to create them. With the necessary objectives, roles, and procedures, students in simulations complete the class with increased life skills and additional ownership of learning. Students also benefit from increased collaborative efforts to solve problems and gain an important sense of political efficacy.

Major Findings from the Track

The papers offered a variety of perspectives with regard to the effectiveness of role-based exercises in improving classroom learning. Nikolaos Biziouras' work found that role-playing simulations increased students' ability to grasp complex concepts in comparative politics, operationalize different theories of coalition government, and apply lessons of bargaining in a more precise manner. Mary McCarthy observed that this finding is accurate for abstract games as well as role-playing simulations. However, her findings were inconclusive as to whether the abstract games or role-playing simulations are more effective in general. Andrew Goodman's experience with second-run simulations validated the assertion that students tend to be more active in the second run, which is attributable to their generally greater focus on appropriate issues and a correspondingly lesser display of a “game mentality.” Robert Amyot and Chad Raymond warned against great expectations from learning-based exercises because one-shot collaborative problem-based exercises (e.g., writing constitutions or role-playing Europe's international relations in 1914) did not prove more effective than standard lecture-discussion formats nor did the student performance on the exams significantly improve.

The other track presentations focused on specific techniques that can improve the conduct of the simulations and their overall effectiveness. Jon Ross suggested that improvisational work (e.g., theater performance or classroom learning), when used well by a confident instructor, has the potential to heighten both the learning and teaching experience. It also provides outside-the-box ways to approach important issues of public and political sphere. Victor Asal showed how interactive exercises that involve poetry and literature could improve the understanding the individual's identity manipulation that moves beyond rational calculation. Nina Kollars made the case that even failed in-class activities can provide valuable insight in explaining complicated learning processes such as scaffolding. Ivan Dinev Ivanov and Jim Masterson shared their experience of collaboration between several smaller institutions of higher education on a simulation dealing with intergovernmental negotiations and argued that such partnerships are beneficial and can improve student satisfaction.

The Way Ahead: Successful Strategies for Simulations and Role Plays

The track participants shared perspectives and explored potential collaborative projects on how to evaluate and grade live and virtual participation in role-play exercises; how learning skills acquired by students from simulations can be assessed actively (including related methodological questions around the design of these exercises), and how best to identity and profile participants for new and collaborative simulation projects among track participants within existing teaching settings and across different academic institutions.

The group had varying views on the evaluation of student participation, however, some form of assessment, whether in the form of a standard “grade” or not, it was agreed, should be completed. Some instructors mentioned that they currently assess students' participation via extra credit for the skills they demonstrate, but many cautioned against such policies. They warned that students should not be awarded for “winning” a game, as winning per se is not the principal goal in many such exercises, especially in courses involving international relations, conflict management, or diplomacy. The group generally concurred that grading of the exercise should be tied to its core goals' accomplishment.

Another important observation in the track was that instructors need to clarify the purpose of role-based exercises for participants. For example, while some games are process-oriented (i.e., they illustrate patterns and processes in international relations or comparative politics), others are result-driven (i.e., they are intended to show specific outcomes). Track members also cautioned that grading occasionally creates a sense of competition for additional grade points and, thus, encourage student behavior geared toward earning extra credit, which may ultimately lead to alteration of the exercise's overall intent.

The group concluded that assessing skills and active learning mechanisms has become a critical tool for the design and execution of simulations and, therefore, a number of insights were offered on the on the subject. Several track members expressed the view that simulations provide value well beyond a tangible grade, such as by offering students opportunities to demonstrate leadership skills that are applicable and practical to real-world political settings in which they may eventually work. Consensus emerged that student-based feedback is also an instrumental component in the assessment and evaluation: some even suggested that open-ended surveys of students' impressions can be helpful in obtaining important insight about their ability to drive learning and skills development. Whether students should perceive “value” of the active learning exercise because it is “fun” or because it entails a clearly identified practical real-world experience remains an open question. While both may be applicable and important for assessing pedagogy, they may need to be put in proper perspective.

In conclusion, the track participants decided to improve coordination in two critical areas: (1) they decided to start planning in the future the conduct of joint active-learning exercises on their campuses that would increase the overall number of participants and help collect sufficient data necessary to generate plausible explanations; and (2) they agreed that the findings of such joint project(s) could be used for a common theme for next year's panel on role plays at the APSA Teaching and Learning Conference. Further information about the group and its insights about active learning are available on its blog: http://activelearningps.wordpress.com/.

Developing Political Judgment

One of the common themes of the three-day workshop was political theory's role in developing students' abilities to think critically about politics and in enabling them to evaluate alternative political propositions. We agreed that developing political judgment differs from other kinds of critical thinking, not only because politics occupies a distinctive place in social life, but also because exercising political judgment involves normative and ethical claims that conventional notions of critical thinking do not address.

Four papers explored pedagogical practices of developing students' capacities of political judgment. Although coming from different theoretical traditions, the papers were remarkably cohesive in their aim to train students in exercises of political judgment. William M. Thomas's “Reclaiming the Critical Self in Modernity: Individual Contention, Educational Reflection, and Political Action” focused on the content and contentiousness of political judgment. By drawing a distinction between received opinion and political contention, Thomas argued that the goal of political theory ought to be to make students aware of how politics is inherently contestable. Only by unveiling the ways power manufactures the appearance of consent can students, as political actors, make political judgments on criteria of justice, right, and good instead of interest, fashion, and the desire to be accepted.

More concretely, participants discussed specific pedagogical practices to transform mere opinion into informed judgment. Benjamin Mitchell's “Commonplace Books: A Tool of Liberal Education in Political Science Programs” detailed his use of journaling as a pedagogical tool. This journaling practice cultivates the practice of daily reflection, encourages close reading of texts, and strengthens the desire for lifelong learning. By drawing from classical, Renaissance, and Enlightenment humanism, Mitchell's meticulously planned exercise of structured daily journaling enables students to achieve a deeper understanding of texts while training them to pursue transformative education as a life-long goal. As he rightly notes, journaling forces students to be active and critical readers, and “by extracting the most significant passages and copying them down by hand, students practice a habit of refining their judgment over time.” Personal investment and daily reflection are powerful means of cultivating political judgment.

David Selby's “Learning by Doing: Two Republican Approaches to Teaching Political Theory” also discussed assignments that inculcate reflection on personal experience as theorizing. He detailed two assignments in which students integrate their experience as political actors and political theorists to reflexively judge and evaluate conceptual and historical categories discussed in class. Offering students opportunities to participate in a political campaign and reflect on their experiences, Selby recounted the potentially transformative learning that active political engagement and corresponding theoretical reflection can produce. Inspired by the republican tradition's focus on participation, Selby's emphasis on the practice of politics shows that practice with guided reflection through historical and conceptual texts can produce a unique form of learning, which sharpens students' capacity for political judgment.

Whereas Selby and Mitchell each drew inspiration from the western political traditions, Kenneth A. Betsalel's “A Search for a New Way of Being in the Political Science Classroom: Contemplative Practice and Political Theory” explored the virtues and vices of incorporating eastern contemplative practices of meditation in class. By using a range of focused and unfocused meditative techniques, Betsalel teaches students to focus themselves, move beyond knee-jerk reactions to controversial topics, and find more nuanced understanding through developing mindfulness. By asking students to first let things be what they are in silent moments of nonjudgmental perception, contemplative practices can help achieve more respectful and sympathetic debate in class. Much like Socratic elenchus or Skeptical ataraxia—practices that are meant to open up spaces of reflective judgment—Betsalel argued that the Buddhist goal of mindfulness can be viewed as a kind of preparation for political judgment.

Although drawn from very different political traditions (critical theory, liberal, republican, and Buddhist) these practices introduce reflective pedagogical experiences to achieve one of the main goals of political theory: training students to exercise political judgment.

The Role of Political Theory within Political Science

The second theme concerned the relationship of political theory to political science. Although more contentious than discussions considering the methods of cultivating political judgment, these conversations resulted in a rough consensus. Participants agreed that the interdisciplinary aspect of political theory enhances the teaching of political science in a distinctive manner and furthers the institutional goals of preparing students to participate in diverse and democratic political communities.

These discussions were instigated by Johnny Goldfinger's “Teaching the History of Political Theory as Philosophy and Science,” which explored the creative ways in which theory and social science research can be integrated in pedagogical practice. Michael Nordquist and Ashley Biser's “The Practice of Political Thinking: Teaching Politics Courses through a Theoretical Lens” demonstrated how concepts can be used in introductory political science courses to push students to critically reflect on key categories. Chris Stangle's “Bringing the Mountain to Students: Teaching Political Theory” described how to get students to apply their critical thinking skills to contemporary political events and problems. These powerful combinations of theory with other sciences and empirical evidence emphasized how teaching political theory can, and should, be effectively integrated with the other subfields. Although participants disagreed on particular approaches to accomplish integration, all endorsed “cross-pollination,” that is, the integration of political theory with the more empirical subfields of political science. Indeed, as the metaphor of “cross-pollination” suggests, the intermingling of theory and science highlights the strengths of each—strengths that complement each other and, when combined, can make for a more dynamic and effective classroom.

Political Theory and the University

On the third day, track discussions turned toward broader questions about the role that political theory can play in the university at large. In light of the challenges posed to the traditional university in the twenty-first century, participants agreed that political theory can contribute in important ways to maintain the unique disciplinary identity of political science. First, political theory is uniquely positioned to address and meet the needs of the diversifying US college student body. Sarah Pemberton's “Teaching Within, Against, and Outside the Canon: Strategies for Incorporating Diversity in Core Political theory Courses” detailed how political theory can bring the western canon into conversation with other political discourses, whether they be critical race theory, nonwestern traditions of political thought, or feminist theory. Significantly, the conversation that ensued highlighted how the changing demographics of college students necessitate changes in the content and mode of presentation of both political theory and political science.

Second, political theory can contribute to maintaining the unique presence of political science through civic education. As noted above, developing the capacity for political judgment is central to the work of political theory, and to democratic citizenship. Although nearly all of our discussions addressed the development of political judgment in some manner, Nordquist and Biser's paper sparked recurrent conversations on the publicly oriented nature of political theory and the role political theorists can play in preparing students to be citizens. Working with students from different socioeconomic and educational backgrounds, Nordquist and Biser emphasized that developing students' abilities to recognize the concepts that organize political reality is the first step of civic education—without which no citizen can navigate the waters of political life.

Overall, participants in our track disagreed about exactly how to make political theory and the study of politics relevant, however, we concurred on the distinctive and important role that political theory plays in training students in political judgment, integrating empirical and theoretical approaches within political science, and contributing to a reconsideration of the role and goals of the university in the twenty-first century.

Accomplishments, Past Recommendations, and This Year's Contributions

Past TRM track summaries, as well as 2012 presentations and discussions, yield a consistent set of recommendations for political science undergraduate majors. First, undergraduates should be required to complete a research methods course early in the major. This course enhances essential academic and professional skills, and better prepares students for a variety of postgraduate endeavors. Second, whenever possible, research methods should be integrated across the political science curriculum, increasing student understanding of the relevance of these methods to gain a better understanding of politics. Third, the research methods course should include both qualitative and quantitative methods, as well as an information literacy component. And, fourth, whenever possible, majors should take a capstone or senior research course that put into practice the methodological skills students developed over the course of the major. Research presented at the 2012 TRM indicates that undergraduate political science majors produce considerably less research than their peers in Great Britain; or, for that matter, than their peers in other majors (Parker Reference Parker2012). TRM participants agreed, however, that all of these recommendations require rigorous assessment. Two papers focused on aspects of assessment: Fletcher (Reference Fletcher2012) found significant differences in student evaluations of research methods courses depending on question wording on the course evaluation; and, Van Vechten (Reference Van Vechten2012) found that repetition and a variety of opportunities to practice skills are both essential to students' intellectual progress, as well as to their positive evaluation of the usefulness of methods instruction. Assessment now focuses on particular courses (or sets of courses) in one setting. Participants agreed that assessment should be expanded cross-campus to make the findings more robust and useful.

TRM 2012 track participants offered a variety of insights, approaches, and tools to improve research methods instruction. In terms of teaching tools, this year's additions include a “literature grid” organized visually using an Excel spreadsheet to help students discern better what we know and how we know it (Yacobucci Reference Yacobucci2012); and an analysis of common mistakes students make when crafting a research question (Bachner Reference Bachner2012). In addition, TRM participants offered several innovative approaches to teaching research methods, including community-based research, problem-based learning, and team-based learning. A team-based approach to learning research methods was found to improve student performance on tests (Broscheid Reference Broscheid2012). Two papers explored hands-on student learning combining civic engagement and student research, two “high impact practices” emphasized by undergraduate liberal arts curricula. Tegtmeyer Pak, Udani, and Hendriks (Reference Tegtmeyer Pak, Udani and Hendriks2012) assess the feasibility of using this combination to improve student learning, focusing on the challenges faculty face in creating these courses. Another paper explored these challenges in detail, offering a step-by-step primer for a course using exit polling to teach research methods and civic engagement (Kasniunas Reference Kasniunas2012) Finally, this year's TRM track benefited from the inclusion of two university librarians who encouraged faculty to partner with them to create tools that enhance students' ability to manage bibliographic sourcing and to create quality literature reviews, as well as to approach the proliferation of sources (traditional and new media) analytically and effectively. One paper, the product of a collaboration between teaching and library faculty, explored the “perils and promises” of using new media in the political science classroom (Cope and Flanagan Reference Cope and Flanagan2012).

Future Research and Recommendations

Taken together, the themes and presentations at this year's conference suggest that more systematic, cross-campus studies of the effectiveness of approaches to teaching research methods is needed. As a first step, political scientists should canvass the various pedagogical strategies and instructional tools used to teach students how to perform both empirical and normative research. When we know which practices are commonly used, we can evaluate the relative effectiveness of these practices. Although several papers presented at the conference (and at previous conferences) examine whether a particular instructional method leads to a desired outcome, these analyses are usually limited to students in a single course or university. To determine the extent to which the results generalize to student populations that differ in size, demographic makeup, institutional setting, and level of education (undergraduate versus graduate) is difficult.

In addition to taking a cross-campus approach, scholars should study how new technologies can address the challenges inherent to teaching research methods. Throughout the conference, track participants offered suggestions of new websites and software programs. The OPOSSEM website (opossem.org), for example, is a richly stocked online repository of instructional materials for methods faculty. Track participants also discussed the usefulness of Zotero (zotero.org) for helping students store and organize materials related to a research project. Research that examines how faculty can use emerging technologies to help students write better literature reviews, perform more rigorous analyses, and facilitate group work would be extremely beneficial to the profession.

To support the undertaking of this scholarship and the improvement of instruction in research methods, we recommend the following:

1. 1. An APSA task force to examine how the discipline of political science has changed in the past 30 years and identify the goals of an undergraduate political science degree. This recommendation was echoed by several other tracks. In particular, track participants want to understand how methods coursework can be incorporated into a political science education to help students meet their academic and professional goals.

2. 2. A short course at the 2013 APSA Teaching and Learning Conference to coordinate cross-campus scholarship of teaching and learning with respect to research methods. Participants will work together to launch surveys and experiments to evaluate research methods courses.

3. 3. A panel at the 2013 APSA Teaching and Learning Conference to highlight career options composed of leaders in the industries in which political science students seek to enter. As methods faculty, we are well-positioned to provide students with concrete research and analytical skills that will help advance their careers. To ensure we are maximizing this opportunity, we would like to hear from those currently working in government agencies, think tanks, nonprofit organizations, consulting firms, and Capitol Hill about which skills they desire most in prospective employees.

4. 4. A forum for cross-track sharing at future APSA Teaching and Learning Conferences. At this year's final session, we observed significant overlap in the track discussions. It would be useful to devote a session at next year's conference to the exchange of ideas and best practices across tracks.