Giving It the Old College Try: Academic Departments and Undergraduate Curriculum Change in Political Science, 2009–2019

Abstract

Thirty years after the last APSA-sponsored recommendations on the structure of the undergraduate political science major, new efforts at curriculum reform are under way. As a prelude to how the profession might respond, this article examines how political science departments made undergraduate curriculum changes during the 2010s. Based on a survey of department chairs in 2019–2020 (prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.), one-half of political science programs changed major requirements in the previous five years and 70% made revisions during the decade. Most changes involved adding courses or tracks and modifying course sequences within the prevailing model of subfield distribution. Assuming departments are rational actors seeking to improve student learning and respond effectively to the educational marketplace, various explanations of curriculum change were tested. Structural variables (institutional type and departmental factors) had no significant effects. Nevertheless, the survey revealed learning-based (acquiring disciplinary knowledge, developing intellectual skills) and market-based (concern about enrollments) motivations for change, as well as institutional constraints. Among curricular alternatives to the distribution model, evidence indicated greater support for promoting liberal learning outcomes. Moreover, the civic engagement movement influenced departmental decision-making. However, few programs made curriculum changes related to diversity, equity, or social justice, notable concerns among students and within the discipline.

Keywords:

• Curriculum
• high-impact practices
• civic engagement
• political learning
• undergraduate education

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this article, McClellan, E. Fletcher, Kyle C. Kopko, Kayla Gruber, and Amanda Hafler, “Reforming the Political Science Major: How Much, What Kind, and What For?” was presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 29–September 1, 2019.

Notes

1 Departments at public institutions may experience even greater constraints. State legislatures and executive officials can prescribe curricula and instructional practices, such as requiring students to take state government courses in the general education curriculum or imposing “educational gag orders” on faculty (Goodman 2022).

2 Deep-level processing reveals a longer-term commitment to understanding the meaning of information, including integration and synthesis with prior learning, seeing things from different perspectives, and application to real-world situations (Kuh 2008). The NSSE instrument attempts to capture associations among deep learning characteristics, engaging teaching practices, and experiential learning activities.

3 We think of curriculum as a pathway or guided journey toward the acquisition of intended learning. Formally defined, a curriculum refers to “all the learning which is planned and guided by the school, whether it is carried on in groups or individually, inside or outside the school” (Smith 2000).

4 The Institutional Review Board of (blinded) approved the survey, project # 1429737-1, on May 1, 2019.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

E. Fletcher McClellan

E. Fletcher McClellan is Professor of Political Science at Elizabethtown College, School of Public Service, One Alpha Drive, Elizabethtown PA 17022, [email protected]. He is a former department chair, dean, and provost at Elizabethtown. His work appears in PS: Political Science & Politics, the Journal of Political Science Education, and the state politics and policy website, Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

Kyle C. Kopko

Kyle C. Kopko is Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Elizabethtown College.

Amanda Hafler

Amanda Hafler holds a 2019 bachelor’s degree in legal studies and a 2020 master’s of public policy degree from Elizabethtown.