Recently, the editorial team discussed what we thought were the trends in our manuscript queue regarding the topics that pedagogy scholars are writing about. The two most common are simulations and civic engagement/civic education. This issue of the Journal of Political Science Education is illustrative of our anecdotal evidence with five of eleven pedagogy articles on some aspect of simulations, three on civic education/engagement, and two on active learning more broadly. There are also three excellent reviews that should be helpful to faculty at all levels of the discipline but especially new faculty. We are now looking at the data to get a real sense of where pedagogy research is and where it might be headed. We also hope that by identifying these trends, we can encourage submissions in areas that seem underrepresented.
The simulations literature in political science is broad and extremely varied, but there are two general complaints about the pedagogy. First, there is far less systematic assessment than any of us would like. Two of the articles in this volume attempt to address this in different ways. Andrew Robinson and Michelle Goodridge offer an important and significant contribution to the assessment mechanisms for simulations. Building off of earlier work by Carolyn Shaw (Citation2006), the authors incorporate both qualitative (via content analysis of open ended pre-/posttest questions) and quantitative (using a turnover analysis) methods. The result is a study that both addresses learning specifically and outlines a potential pitfall for open ended pre-/posttest analysis. Lucy West and Dan Halvorson, in contrast, offer a especially robust qualitative examination of how to encourage deep learning for students participating in a simulation. Everyone who uses simulations wants to deepen the learning that students experience (though, to be fair, so do instructors engaging in different pedagogical practices). The findings are interesting both in terms of content and in terms of metacognitive learning. For me, it is the metacognitive that is most important because their measures reinforce my own observations—that is, emotional connections increase metacognitive learning.
The second broad complaint is that creating simulations is difficult and it is hard to know where to begin. This issue includes three articles that should make it easier for faculty to create complex and meaningful simulations. Erin Baumann and John FitzGibbon provide the insights of instructional designers who happen to be political scientists (or vice versa). Using a Design-Implementation-Evaluation model (DImE), the authors provide clear, useful guidance on developing, employing, and assessing simulations. The structure that the authors provide allows simulation designers a mechanism for repeatable and informed design and implementation. In contrast, the article by Tanya Kempston and Nicholas Thomas offers a truly unique perspective on simulation design using realia (incorporating objects from the real world into classroom simulations). Realia is a pedagogical tool more common in theater or literary studies but offers tangible benefits to simulations in politics and international relations. The authors demonstrate that realia is an effective means of providing concrete and measurable links to learning outcomes. Finally, Ludwig Gelot’s article provides a rich and interesting examination of how a large-scale multinational training platform (that few will have access to) can be adapted to run a smaller-scale yet still complex simulation. The goal is to use the platform (or its adapted cousin) to develop specific knowledge, skills, and abilities in students that they can then use in their later work life. As many of us are all too aware, teaching specific skills is increasingly important for faculty across disciplines.
The other two active learning articles are different but equally useful for faculty. Kimberley Weir offers a means of incorporating students logging their choices, habits, and decisions over time to develop data that they can then use for further analysis (systematic or otherwise). This builds substantively on the literature on journals or diaries but offers very real pedagogical benefits for students. They can see their own efforts relative to their peers and can use the data for meaningful discussions (and often change). Petra Hendrickson looks at how active learning can improve student excitement, interest, and self-efficacy. By discussing specific active learning pedagogies, Hendrickson shows us how we can incorporate the assignments into our own classroom to motivate students, deepen their learning, and make them more confident.
The three articles in this volume that loosely address civic education and community engagement are equally interesting and profound. Chelsea Kaufman offers deep and thoughtful insight into how to incorporate civic education and data literacy (my words, not hers). The problem, one we all recognize, is that there is a disdain for and perhaps even a distrust of numbers. Moreover, misinformation is difficult to correct because people can become defensive. Kaufman offers guidance that can make this process easier and more effective. The last two articles in the issue focus on community-based research in different contexts. Rebecca Glazier and Warigia Bowman offer their insights from a longitudinal study that incorporates both undergraduate and graduate students. The students learn multimethod research tools, data analysis, and engagement with the community of study. The research offers clear evidence of the benefits of the approach while acknowledging the time commitments. The work could easily be a model used elsewhere. Johnson, Gallagher, and Appleton offer a model of engaged research with great reach and clear results. The authors examine how participatory action research—where researchers and community participants jointly work to solve some problem—can be an important tool to enhance student learning, faculty engagement, and the needs of the community. Many institutions now are looking to build or strengthen community partnerships where students and faculty work in the community for common benefit. These authors articulate one clear way that this could be strengthened.
This issue comes out approximately one year after most institutions shut down for the COVID pandemic. We hope that the year ahead is smoother with life in, and out, of the classroom returning to a greater sense of normalcy.