|
Timothy Dale, University of South Carolina, Upstate Political Scientists have become increasingly concerned over the paucity of student interest, knowledge, skills, and participation in the political process. Citizen involvement has declined nationally since the 1960’s, with voting rates plummeting from 65 percent to nearly 50 percent in 2000. Voting rates for young people between the ages of 18 to 24 fell from about 65 percent to a low of 36 percent in 2000. That participation rate improved slightly to 42 percent in the heated 2004 presidential race. This trend led the American Political Science Task Force on Civic Education to conclude that “current levels of political knowledge, political engagement, and political enthusiasm are so low as to threaten the vitality and stability of democratic politics in the United States. In response to this trend, classroom instructors have wrestled with a host of strategies and tactics to stem the decline. Several approaches were examined in Civic Engagement Track II, including service learning, civic engagement, internships, simulations, guest speakers, field projects, and classroom debate. Participants weighed the strengths and limitations of each approach; while concluding that each approach resulted in positive gains, there were many unresolved questions requiring additional research and investigation. Service Learning and Civic Engagement Initial track discussions explored the definitional difficulties in distinguishing between service learning and civic engagement, noting that the two are closely related. While some participants contended that service learning is ostensibly non-political and less ideological, as opposed to civic engagement, which is more politically-driven and policy-oriented, most panelists concluded that it was difficult, if not impossible, to draw this line. Indeed, both approaches embrace personal, policy, and political values. The panelists also grappled with the issue of assessment. How does the instructor measure the success or failure of service learning and civic engagement? On this issue, the participants reached consensus: far more work remains to be done in order to answer this question. While current methods reveal several positive instructional outcomes, especially of a cognitive nature, they fail to adequately measure student progress in terms of affective learning, skill acquisition, personal esteem, political efficacy, verbal and written competence, and values clarification. Related to this question is the issue of grading. Here, too, the panelists found that it is difficult to assess student performance in both the cognitive and affective domains, and they questioned whether pen-and-paper tests can adequately measure the myriad benefits associated with service learning and civic engagement. The panelists concluded that it is impossible to assess such experiences by employing multiple-choice tests, true-false questions, short-answer responses, or even formal essays. Subjectivity threatens to undermine rigorous measurement, limiting serious attempts at assessment. A number of other questions were also debated. Do service learning and civic engagement enhance course content? Do these experiences actually foster civic participation? Do service learning and civic engagement encourage positive learning outcomes? Do these experiences heighten student performance in other courses? Do service learning and civic engagement promote personal efficacy? The answers to these and other questions remain unresolved. The participants expressed the need to more fully examine these issues, as well as how best to incorporate service learning and civic engagement into their instructional pedagogy. For example, are similar benefits derived from a highly-structured assignment to a less-defined one, or from a single-session or a multiple-session experience to a semester-long one? Additional research needs to be conducted to answer these questions. Civic Engagement and the Curriculum A primary area of interest for the track discussion was integrating civic engagement into political science curricula. Given a decline in civic engagement among students, one of our challenges as political science educators is to try to counteract this trend through cultivating knowledge about and commitment to civic participation. Several papers presented in this track addressed various ways that this might be accomplished. Ranging from course design to classroom activities and community outreach, participants were eager to discuss conventional and innovative ways to implement service learning and civic engagement activities in the curriculum. Some discussion occurred, for example, relating to syllabus design, program placement, and the grading of assignments related to service learning activities. One of the concerns addressed within this discussion regarded how course objectives and content can be more or less relevant given certain service learning experiences and placements. Many participants agreed that service learning placements are an important factor in drawing connections between the course and the students’ experiences at service learning sites. Alongside placement, assignments related to the service learning components of a course were also significant to discussants. Some suggested that the value of service learning activities can be brought into the weighted grading of the course through ‘low stakes’ assignments. This kind of assignment requires students to participate and to reflect on their experiences without the pressure of an intensive rubric for evaluating these subjective components. The weighting of service learning assignments also raised questions about the kind of courses most appropriate for service learning components. Various arguments were made about the value of service learning in both upper and lower division classes, with discussion focusing on the different objectives of the service learning activities in each. Most agreed that different courses at different levels should apply learning through service in different ways. This discussion involved considerations of “affective learning” versus “content learning” that is available to students in service learning experiences. A benefit of experiential learning not often incorporated into formal course assessments, for example, involves the growth that students may experience in the most productive service learning environments. Civic engagement is not limited to service learning as a part of the curriculum, however, and track participants were also interested in how educators might be able to transform the classroom itself into a site of civic engagement. Papers and suggestions were presented proposing that different forms of communication might be useful for diversifying the classroom as a public space. Structured classroom debate, for example, allows students the benefit of presenting research while experimenting with their own advocacy and voice. Suggestions were also made for alternative forms of expression through assignments, including artistic forms of visual and oral communication. Especially interesting and promising for many participants was a presentation on the use of community service newsletters (and the narratives therein) as a method of integrating and communicating classroom and service learning experiences. If civic knowledge is not simply cognitive, educators should explore ways to facilitate and assess the expression of these other forms of civic knowledge. Conceiving of the classroom as a civic space inspired a few presenters and discussants to focus attention on the philosophical area of our discipline. If discussion involves considerations of civil society and cultivating an ethic of civic-mindedness, then political theory courses may offer surprising opportunities for discussion about these ideas. Civic engagement requires in part that we come to terms with the public realm, and attempt to revitalize participation in political processes. Part of civic engagement, therefore, is learning how to take part in deliberative discussions. In this sense political theory offers opportunities, not unlike other political science courses, to evoke the public realm in the classroom. With this goal in mind several track participants offered suggestions for making a classroom more democratic, without sacrificing important learning outcomes. Many argued, for instance, that democratic practices may facilitate rather than compromise several desired learning outcomes. Next Steps: Fostering Civic Engagement on Campus Civic engagement can benefit campuses and communities as much as it can benefit student learning in the classroom. Research findings presented in this track helped participants understand the advantages and productive relationships that can evolve from civically engaged college students and university campuses. Engaged students predict engaged citizens. Likewise, engaged university communities can improve and sustain involvement in our broader communities. One area for future research involves the development of productive partnerships between campuses and their communities. The sustainability of these programs should be of particular interest. Track participants stressed the need for institutional support for civic engagement initiatives on campus. There was a cry for universities to “live up to their mission statements” and to commit resources to the task. This could involve the creation of a “center” that would provide an administrative support structure for faculty willing to develop civic engagement components in their courses. The support provided by such a center could include workshops and faculty development programs, course development grants, and other financial incentives designed to facilitate the inclusion of civic engagement in the curriculum. The staff at such a center would be devoted to finding creative ways to expand course offerings with civic engagement and to increase engagement on campus. There was a consensus that institutional support was essential to develop long-term, sustainable community partnerships. These are simply too difficult to create and to maintain on an ad hoc, individual faculty member basis. Participants stressed the need for additional research of “best practices” to explore how campuses are developing their service learning and civic engagement programs as well as the creation of materials that would provide guidance for those seeking to increase engagement on their campuses. In addition to having administrative support to facilitate civic engagement programs, participants also discussed the need to change the reward structure on many campuses. In particular, participants argued that tenure and promotion guidelines should reward the additional time and effort needed to implement service learning and field work components in the curriculum. One track participant was her campus’ Director of Service Learning, another was Director of her university’s Center for Civic Engagement, and another was leading her university’s effort to create a sophomore year experience of “citizenship across the curriculum.” The diverse group of Civic Engagement II track participants shared their experiences and discussed the challenges and issues to be addressed when attempting to foster civic engagement on campus. In particular, participants emphasized the need to build support across the campus -- to reach out to non-political scientists -- and to develop citizenship across the curriculum and to promote campus-wide culture of engagement. And, finally, participants discussed the need to build support within the discipline, so that scholars who are interested in the scholarship of teaching and learning are less marginalized by their peers. Discussants praised the APSA’s efforts in organizing the Conference on Teaching and Learning Conference as a means of fostering scholarly debate and dialogue about these important issues. References APSA Task Force on Civic Education in the 21st Century. “Expanded Articulation Statement: A Call for Reactions and Contributions.” Vol. 31, No. 3 (September 1998) PS: Political Science and Politics, pp. 636-37. |
Join/Renew Now!
Contribute
Contact APSA