Get Them to Read, Get Them to Talk: Using Discussion Forums to Enhance Student Learning

Abstract

A persistent question in undergraduate education is the question of getting students to prepare adequately prior to coming to class meetings. This article touches on some of the literature related to this “perennial issue” and then discusses the use of the Internet, via Course Management Software systems, as a solution this problem. As opposed to surprise quizzes and other such activities, this article shows that the use of technology can produce better quality preparation and more efficient use of class time. In the assignment, students are asked to post responses to thought questions on an internet discussion forum, which is read by the instructor prior to class and is a graded assignment. Before class, the instructor uses these postings to help prepare specific themes or discussion topics for class meetings. The article includes tabular data on the assignment's “costs and benefits” and a sample Discussion Forum. Alternative formulations of the assignment are also discussed for readers who might wish to adapt the idea in ways consistent with their own objectives.

Keywords:

• pre-class preparation
• technology
• course management software
• online discussion

This project started several years ago as part of a quest to increase the probability that students would prepare for classes—and participate actively in them—by completing readings (and other) assignments prior to class meetings, eternal quests in our profession. The problem of pre-class preparation presented itself in all my courses, particularly since I did not want to devote any significant classroom time to “pop quizzes” or other such methods of assessing student work. In discussion settings, which I use extensively, the risks were even greater, given a discussion's reliance on intelligent student input. All of us have been faced with the fear of facing an unsuccessful class discussion. Besides the wisdom received from scholars, technology in recent years, particularly the development of Course Management System software, has added a new dimension to the range of possible solutions to these perennial issues.

In this paper, I describe the use of Internet-based Discussion Forums as an integral part of a pedagogical strategy to improve learning in traditional face-to-face undergraduate education (as opposed to online or distance learning). The Discussion Forum assignment blends “thought” or reflection questions with Internet technology: students post responses to a thought question and respond to the postings of other students prior to class meetings. The result has been, I believe, an increase in student learning in my courses. What has evolved, happily, is a different way of approaching and structuring discussion-based teaching, useful for instructors who rely on lectures but schedule occasional discussion sections and instructors who rely heavily or completely on a discussion-based pedagogy.

In its simplest form, the Discussion Forum assignment harnesses the communicative power of the Internet to improve the quality of student preparation for discussion class meetings. It does this, in effect, by extending the discussion period beyond the parameters of the class meeting period. The discussion begins before class, I review the pre-class discussion, and based on student input to that point. I then structure the classroom portion of the discussion (hopefully) to maximize student learning. ¹

In the sections that follow, I briefly describe the problems mentioned above and then provide more detail on the Discussion Forum assignment itself, including the practical impact of this assignment on my day-to-day activities as an instructor, both in class and in terms of class preparation. I follow that with some data on student reactions to this assignment; and some concluding thoughts about the rewards and costs of adopting this assignment as a foundation for one's teaching. The Appendices include the Discussion Forum assignment as recently presented to students, and a sample text of one forum's contents.

The Problem(s)

The main overall objective of the Discussion Forum assignment is to increase learning by having students become more actively involved with the material they are reading and discussing in class. The specific structure of the assignment aims at two long-standing issues among faculty in higher education: how do we get them to do the (reading) assignment before class, and how do we get them to talk in class? In addition to these “immediate” problems, two additional concerns exist. On the global level, particularly in liberal arts disciplines such as political science, we should be concerned with lifelong learning skills. On the other end of the continuum, we want to avoid adding an excessive amount of “busy work” to already crowded student schedules, if only because to do so risks student apathy, or worse, in our courses. How can an assignment speak to these multiple issues?

Green and Rose (1996) describe getting students to talk (and read) intelligently as “The Professor's Dream.” How to achieve this in a discussion class? Their simple answer is no less valid for its simplicity: let them prepare. They recommend a constant flow of thought questions, designed to let students have some specific things they can work on before a class meeting. They further encourage this behavior by weighing a Participation grade very heavily—“15–30 percent of the course grade” (Green and Rose 1996, 688)—to get students to adopt this “partnership” Green and Rose (1996, 688) are proposing. But even then, they argue:

…the success of this method is much more dependent on the creation of a classroom atmosphere within which students feel comfortable taking risks—answering questions when they are not entirely confident they are right—in front of you and in front of their peers.

When the atmosphere is cordial, when students learn that all humans—even students, let alone professors—make mistakes but survive, we eventually create a context in which even shy and/or struggling students begin to feel that it's okay to participate. My experience suggests that once participation during class becomes the norm, student preparation for class becomes rational and in their self-interest, and they will now act accordingly, if they can. One cannot control all the variables, but it seems to me that it is incumbent on instructors to create a structure that encourages and even permits pre-class preparation. In other words, to take this beyond Green and Rose (1996), thought questions are not only an opportunity we can use to promote learning, good thought questions beget a need for more good thought questions. Students need them. The Discussion Forum assignment adds another dimension. Part of pre-class preparation, for both students and myself, includes a chance to see student answers to those thought questions.

Canfield and Reeher (1998) discuss the use of a point system as the basic assessment design for an introductory course. Students have a variety of choices and can accumulate points in order to gain grades in a course. They see this as an effective learning strategy in a society characterized by capitalist norms and notions of individualistic, rational self-interest. I structure the Discussion Forum assignment using this principle; that is, this is a graded assignment, consciously designed to provide an incentive structure with meaningful and direct consequences. As will be seen below, constant, and even extra, attention to this assignment provides rewards in terms of grades. ²

At the global level, I see teaching as a kind of empowerment process. My goal is to create activities that over the course of a semester increase a student's ability to work with the substantive content material, ultimately, ideally, without the need of a professor. From a “leadership” perspective, following Ben Barber (1999), this means trying to be the kind of teacher/leader that becomes, sooner or later, no longer necessary: the leader as “moderator,” who successfully fades away after helping create leadership (read: learning) skills in others. ³ For instructors who might be reticent about “empowering” students, Mezeske reports that students tend to learn that passivity is a successful strategy in “hostile environments,” including some college classrooms. Yet we know, from a plethora of research, that learning requires active students. If students are passive, it could be because they are lazy, shy, confused, unprepared, etc. But we should ask whether we instructors might reinforce structures that encourage passivity, even for the best and brightest. ⁴ Instructors need to help students learn through thoughtful manipulation of their learning situation. “Empowerment” here is intended to be reflected in our waning role as “leader” and in the waxing of our students' learning skills. This happens when student input becomes a major factor in class preparation, assuming students become conscious of this process during the semester. ⁵

In sum, the Discussion Forum assignment, designed originally as a way to resolve some perennial issues in college instruction, draws on certain pedagogical principles and practical concerns to provide students with structured incentives so they can learn more, at many different levels. It does this by using technology to expand the time frame for class discussions. I now turn to a more detailed description of the assignment itself, before describing the impact on student learning.

The Assignment

The Discussion Forum assignment relies on a Course Management application, which is software faculty use for posting course materials so that students can see material via the Internet. ⁶ Course Management Software (CMS) can be used solely to disseminate course relevant information, from a syllabus through lecture notes, ancillary materials, etc. The Forum assignment relies on the interactive use of this technology, however, as the paragraphs below will detail. That is, students do not simply read something posted on the Internet; they must respond, also via the Internet, and their responses become a key part of the learning process.

In the Discussion Forum assignment, students post messages on our course web site prior to class meetings, responding to a thought question they have in advance. The Discussion Forum assignment is a major academic assignment in my courses, particularly in the introductory level courses. There are many posting occasions during the course of a semester, from about fourteen to as many as twenty, depending on the course. Individual postings are graded essentially as Pass/Fail, with points accumulating along the lines suggested by Canfield and Reeher (1998). The cumulative impact of a student's postings results in a grade that is weighted 20% or 25% of the course grade, depending on the course. The Discussion Forum assignment stands as its own heavily weighted grade, not subsumed within any other grading category where nonperformance might be mitigated by other aggregated activities, such as a Participation grade, for example. Although any single Discussion Forum is optional for students, this is in effect a required activity. In fact, the overall grading scale for the assignment requires, if students are going to earn better than a grade in the B range, that their point total exceed the number of Forums scheduled for the semester. I return to this topic below. (The complete current version of the assignment is appended to this paper.)

Discussion Forum questions—“the thought questions”—are generally available from the outset of the semester on the course web site. Each Forum is related to a single reading assignment and to a specified class meeting on the course schedule. At their leisure, students may visit these sites at any time prior to the assignment due date. In the assignment, I encourage students to do reading assignments only after visiting the Forum to see what the thought question(s) is for the specific reading. I do not hand out printed versions of the thought questions, in order to encourage early visits to the Forum web page. If there are messages posted on that Forum already, obviously students can read these before they do the assigned reading. ⁷

I generally provide one thought question per Discussion Forum, with each Forum therefore having a very limited life; students tend to respond and comment on other student postings within 48 hours before the designated class meeting. I usually create all Forums as part of my pre-course planning, but there is nothing to preclude inserting an additional Forum at any point, since using the Internet for this activity makes flexibility much easier.

An alternative approach to my decision to use so many Forums in a semester would be to have one or more ongoing Forums that might cover an entire unit, or a couple of weeks, so that the dialogues can continue over time. In this case, one would want to make sure there is more than a single question, ideally one or two per reading assignment within the unit. There is nothing wrong with adding thought questions during the time frame of the Forum, provided students are aware of what is going on. The value in this approach is that the online discussion is more easily continued after a specified class meeting. As will be suggested below, these are not mutually exclusive strategies. In my structuring of the assignment, I am admittedly stressing student pre-class preparation, but other instructors might wish to focus more on the additional learning that might occur if post-class discussions are encouraged or required. Indeed, this dynamic often suggests itself during a particularly interesting class discussion, at which point I will simply extend the life of a Forum and add an additional thought question, thus further expanding the scope of the discussion while giving students a chance to accumulate an additional point in their quest for a better grade.

Using Discussion Forums intensively before class meetings means my pre-class preparation for class falls into two categories, clerical and substantive. Let me begin with the clerical work. As noted above, Forums are a graded activity, albeit essentially Pass/Fail, one point or zero. What this means in practice is that I must print out postings before class, read them, assign a grade and record that grade. My approach to this grading process is to make it very easy for a posting to “Pass.” Students must try hard to avoid getting that one point; truth be told, almost anything reasonable gets them the point. In practice, this means that with a little practice, it becomes a fairly quick task, clerically, to read these messages. I do award extra points for better posts, however, so the grading process is not quite so open and shut, I still spend time reading to see if students are making points that would merit additional credit (Very good posts get 1.5 points, outstanding posts get 2). Fortunately, course management software renders the technical dimension of grading quite simple: a quick entry via my keyboard and the software records and averages grades.

As mentioned above, the final weighted grade for the Discussion Forum assignment requires—for a grade higher than a B—that students need to do better than merely Pass at least a couple of those Forums, while missing few, if any, or they have to find alternative ways of gaining points. Besides what has just been suggested above—extending the life of a Forum—there are other alternative ways to earn points. The most popular one among my students is simply extra Discussion Forums. These usually coincide with events outside of the classroom: the showing of film X, a panel on topic Y, a lecture by distinguished visitor Z, etc. If students attend these events, they can post a message to an extra Discussion Forum created for the occasion.

In smaller classes, I will often print each student's message separately, occasionally comment on them and hand them back at the start of the class meeting. I prefer doing this because they then have some instant feedback, as well as their post at hand should the post become part of a discussion. (This task tends to be the first to be skipped if pre-class preparation time is short.) In larger classes, concern for the trees being demolished often leads me to print just one archived copy of all postings, i.e., one single document—which the ANGEL software creates—that allows me to read all the postings in one single document. These archived compilations generally run to about a dozen pages or so. In this scenario, I have all the materials at hand in class, but students do not. ⁸ But since all this material is on the Internet, I can use the computer in the classroom to call up specific items. If there is adequate time but less technology, an instructor can easily produce overhead slides if specific items need to be shown in class. (Appendix B is an example of an archived Forum.)

On the substantive side of pre-class preparation, the “art” of the Discussion Forum approach lies in a couple of areas: semester planning and the immediate pre-class review of student postings. The first component of the “art” of this type of assignment is the content of the thought question for each Discussion Forum—not immediately “pre-class” but still important preparation. A good thought question must not simply look for objective material students can look up or copy from earlier posted messages. Questions should provoke some analytic reflection: “Watch Speech X (perhaps from C-Span, assuming the instructor wishes to assign a video) and see if you can discern the ideological orientation of the speaker, connecting your thoughts to our course text…,” or “In Chapter 7, our text makes four major points. Which of these are you least comfortable with, in light of your personal experiences or the readings from earlier chapters?” I sometimes ask questions as general as: “What is the murkiest point in Chapter 3?” or “What specific point(s) in Chapter 3 do you think we should discuss in class, and why?” In other words, fishing is also productive; questions need not always be tied to the specific content of a reading assignment, particularly with difficult assignments. In sum, if you ask them to post a message telling you what the four main points of Chapter 7 are, you'll get bored reading twenty identical answers, and so will they. If you ask a thought provoking question, you are more likely to enjoy and profit from what you read. Besides avoiding boredom, you are likely to find many inspiring topics for the class discussion that will be about to begin in a few minutes.

Immediate substantive class preparation involves the creative review and use of the content of student postings to the Forum. There are many possibilities. One might seek to discover what points in the reading were not as well understood as one would want and spend class time accordingly. Or, I sometimes discover that parts of the readings were well understood and hence need not take up much class time. Often, student posts will lead me to review specific parts of a reading or to review my notes on some specific aspect of a topic. Just as often, student posts might lead me to plan a mini-lecture that helps them see how assignment X relates to the larger picture of the course, or of the text. This assignment lets an instructor empower students to shape the nature of course content during class meetings. The “art” in this is simply to let the content of student postings be as rich a mother lode of ideas as possible. (The following section provides an example.)

Once the semester begins and students become more acutely aware of the relationship between their posts and a major course grade, I instruct them that to earn more than simply one point for a Pass they should incorporate material that shows me they can connect with or incorporate previous course material. Or, they might bring in personal experiences that shed light on their understanding of the thought question prefacing the Discussion Forum. After about three weeks into a semester, I begin to find very interesting insights into how students connect a specific reading with another item in the course materials; or how they connect text material with current events. With a little experience, instructors will find that these ideas from students enable us to come to class with a half dozen discussion topics ready, any one or two of which could take an entire period. Since my goal is to encourage the “higher order” analytic skills, I use these posts and the topics they suggest quite extensively in the discussion classes.

An Example

My Introduction to Political Science course has as one of my goals to get students to become more interested in politics, less cynical about politicians, etc., as part of larger goals around future citizens, etc. To that end, we use a short text by Tom Volgy (2001), a political scientist and past mayor of Tucson, who uses data about the practical lives of politicians, the complex nature of social problems facing politicians, and data on the role of the media in a conceptual framework stressing the need for citizen “empathy” as a requisite for the successful functioning of a liberal democracy. Because the book was to be read in a relatively short time period, our first discussion class followed a Forum with a fairly broad thought question. Students were asked to “comment generally about the book (your likes, dislikes, surprises, shocks, etc.); OR comment on Volgy's arguments about trust and empathy and democracy.” The archived Forum is appended to this paper.

In my original planning, the first discussion class on Volgy had been intended to be a more detailed look at the relationship between citizen empathy and democracy. Using these messages to prepare for the specific class meeting, however, I discovered other issues that needed more attention or that could be good alternatives prior to discussing the book's basic model in more detail. Overall, students seemed to fall into two categories, those that seemed to grasp the overall model and those that saw Volgy as complaining excessively, as a “whiner.” For every comment like “I was shocked at the amount of time that Volgy had to spend working. If his example is true of all politicians, then they are due a lot of credit that they do not get” (Katie, #3), I would find another like “… Volgy's plea for so-called empathy was entered through a list of grievances, which in turn was counter-productive. Volgy came across as whiny…” (Nicole, #4-A). Responses #1 (Jen) and #3 (Katie) provided what seemed to be a good understanding of the overall message, for example. These, plus others like them, led me to think I did not have to spend very much time worrying about the overall message of the book, at least at the outset of our discussion.

Other replies led in different, often more detailed directions. Nicole (#2), for example, wanted to distinguish between “empathy” and greater citizen understanding of the issues and structures of politics, claiming that Volgy's reliance on empathy was unrealistic, given our nation's historical antipathy for government. This led me to plan a discussion topic on just that question: is our antigovernmental creed evidence that the kind of citizenship Volgy wants is impossible to achieve? (This would let me do a mini-lecture on the “American creed” and liberalism, which would anticipate a later topic from a different course text.) Micaela (#11) pushed Volgy's logic into new areas by trying to relate his policy views on reform with the fact that most current reformists seem to be right wing Christians, not folk who would be likely to agree with Volgy's own preferences. Jillian (#13) sees Volgy as unfairly blaming the public for the alleged lack of empathy and suggests that it is the role of politicians to perform in ways that would generate support for democracy. Bryan (#9) sees the problem as public apathy, not lack of empathy. Deanna (#16) takes the opposite tack, suggesting that it is our own preconceived negative notions about politicians becoming “self-fulfilling prophecies.” Unlike messages #1 and #3, mentioned above, these (and others) led me to consider a variety of ways in which the class discussion could be conducted.

My point is not necessarily that all of these students were “correct” in their reading of Volgy. Many of them were not. Helping students learn how to read this sort of text, a more global goal of my teaching, depends on my ability to identify their thoughts and opinions, as opposed to solely telling them what is correct. This means encouraging them to both express themselves AND to listen while they participate in a discussion that is hopefully wellfacilitated by an instructor who has planned carefully. ⁹ As one can see from the postings discussed above, far from having to wonder how a discussion will be focused or whether or not it will “work,” my experience is that I frequently run out of class time before I can adequately mine this treasure trove of student input. The important point is that this assignment gives me access to this important student input before a class meeting. This means that in addition to having more well-prepared students, the assignment helps the instructor prepare more efficiently as well.

In sum, the Discussion Forum assignment works best when several factors are in place. Thought questions must be reflective and/or analytical; the instructor must have adequate time to work with student postings prior to class, including some “clerical” tasks; and the instructor must recognize the need, up to a point, to allow student postings to help chart the course of class discussions. Finally, unlike the behavioral law implied in the film Field of Dreams, if you simply build it, they will not come. The Discussion Forum assignment depends on the fact of its being a graded assignment. If you grade it, they will come. Moreover, if you structure in additional incentives, as I have discussed above, they will come more often and more thoughtfully.

Let me now turn to some description of the impact of the Discussion Forum assignment on my classes, as well as an assessment of the assignment based on data from students.

Assessment

My first observations on the impact of the Discussion Forum assignment are admittedly very subjective. Class meetings have a different atmosphere when there is a Discussion Forum being used as the basis of the discussion. Students seem to feel free to ask questions, having asked them already, in many cases, on a message posting. Occasionally—less frequently than I would like—they actually pose questions to each other. Students will have done the reading, most likely, and will have thought about it at least a little: the ground is actually more fertile for insights, in depth comments, etc. I often ask a student what they meant by a sentence in a posted message, and the class will take off on the topic. The student feels good because the posting has had a role in the class. And the discussion that ensues is likely to be profitable because at least some of the other students have read the posting before coming to class.

In an attempt at a somewhat more rigorous assessment of the Discussion Forum assignment, I have asked students to respond to a questionnaire concerning the impact of the use of Internet-based Discussion Forums on their learning and pre-class preparation work in my courses. In the questionnaire, students were asked a variety of questions about technical difficulties, the suitability of the assignment's difficulty, the amount of time involved, the impact on their learning of course materials, etc. The methodology in this evaluation is not sophisticated and can be faulted in at least two ways: there is no control group nor is there any external objective measure of “learning.” Yet the self-assessment data seem relevant to the basic question of the impact of this assignment on student learning. Absent a more refined experimental model, the data here are at least heuristic. ¹⁰

The key question for this paper is of course the impact of this assignment on student learning in the course. Students were asked if they felt that the Discussion Forum assignment “helped your learning in the course?” Table 1 shows replies to this general question. Students had several choices in their replies, allowing some ranking of responses.

Table 1. Student response to impact of assignment on “learning”

Answer	Responses and (percentages)	Cumulative totals and (percentage)
Yes, it was a major factor in my learning in this course	62 (34.4)	62 (34.4)
Yes, it helped, but it wasn't more important than other activities	92 (51.1)	154 (85.6)
Yes, but it really wasn't as helpful as many other activities	14 (7.8)	168 (93.3)
No, it didn't really make much of a difference one way or the other	12 (6.7)	180 (100.0)
No, in fact, it hindered my learning	0 (	180 (100.0)
Totals (n = 180)	180 (100.0)

Earlier, I mentioned that the Discussion Forum assignment seemed particularly important in introductory courses, and indeed the majority of the data are from early courses. When broken down by class, regardless of the course, the results are not significantly different: r = .165, significant at .027. Proportionally more Juniors and Seniors choose the second option than is the case for first year students and Sophomores, suggesting a minor shift away from the more positive overall assessment of the assignment seen in Table 1. Table 2 illustrates these data.

Table 2. Student response to impact of assignment on “learning,” by class

Answer	Fresh (%)	Sophs (%)	Juniors (%)	Seniors (%)	Totals (%)
Yes, it was a major factor in my learning in this course	39(41.1)	8(32.0)	8(26.7)	7(23.3)	62(34.4)
Yes, it helped, but it wasn't more important than other activities	45 (47.4)	15 (60.0)	15 (50.0)	17 (56.7)	92 (51.1)
Yes, but it really wasn't as helpful as many other activities	7 (7.4)	0	3 (10.0)	4 (13.3)	14 (7.8)
No, it didn't really make much of a difference one way or the other	4 (4.2)	2 (8.0)	4 (13.3)	2 (6.7)	12 (6.7)
No, in fact, it hindered my learning	0 (	0 (	0 (	0 (	0 (
Totals (n = 180)	95 (100.1)	25 (100.0)	30 (100.0)	30 (100.0)	180 (100.0)

In Table 1, 168 (93.3%) of the respondents gave a positive assessment of the impact of the Discussion Forum assignment on their learning. These students were asked further to rate the importance of several more specific ways they thought the assignment had helped. Students were presented with four possible ways in which the assignment might have helped their learning, and the students were asked to rate each of these from most to least important. The four choices:

	It helped motivate me to read assignments before class;
	The Forum's question helped me focus on key parts of the readings;
	Other posted messages were an important source of learning for me; and
	Posting is an active step, as opposed to just reading and listening.

In Table 3, reading down the columns, we see the distribution of rankings for each of the four potential ways in which the Discussion Forum assignment might have been perceived by students as having helped their learning. Of the four columns, the first is the one most closely related to the goal of having students prepare assignments before coming to class. To some extent, the second column—in which students recorded their feeling about the importance of having a question that focused their reading—is also related to this goal. The other two columns are more closely related to other goals, first, getting students to learn from each other, and second, the relative value of “active” rather than passive assignments.

Table 3. Ratings of four learning factors, positive respondents

	Motivate to read (%)	Focus reading (%)	Other messages (%)	Active vs. passive (%)
Most important	50 (29.9)	49 (29.3)	33 (19.8)	35 (30.0)
Important	46 (27.6)	53 (31.8)	24 (14.4)	44 (26.3)
Less important	32 (19.2)	41 (24.6)	36 (21.6)	58 (35.6)
Least important	39 (23.4)	24 (14.4)	74 (44.3)	30 (17.8)
Totals	167 (100.1)	167 (100.1)	167 (100.1)	167 (100.1)

The table suggests a couple of interesting findings. For this assignment to be perceived as effective in terms of having students focus on reading prior to class, the numbers in Table 3 would generally be expected to run from highest percentages in the top left cells through lowest frequencies in the lower right cells, and this is generally the case. Students do see the Discussion Forum assignment as motivating them to prepare before class, and they see this as important in helping their learning. ¹¹ However, on the question of learning from peers, part of the goal of a discussion-oriented pedagogy, the results are mixed. Based on the results of a different item in the questionnaire, 152 (84%) of the 185 respondents report that they regularly read at least a couple of messages from other students, and a few, 15 (8.3%), report that they regularly return to a Discussion Forum after their own posting to see what other students posted. Composing a message in reply to another student's post requires more work than simply reading that posting, and only 45 (24.9%) reported that they often post replies to other students' posts. At the same time, students clearly feel that the content of other messages is less important in affecting their learning positively, as reported in the third column of Table 3, where 110 (65.9%) of the 168 respondents who rate this assignment as positive in terms of its impact on their learning nevertheless felt that reading other student messages was less or least important as a reason why the assignment helped their learning. (Conversely, as will be seen in Table 4, of those 14 students who thought the Discussion Forum assignment did not improve their learning, 13 (92.8%) rated the impact of other students' message as less or least important in explaining the negative outcome.)

Table 4. Ratings of four learning ways: negative respondents

	Busy work (%)	One dimension(%)	Other messages (%)	Technical (%)
Most important	8 (57.1)	3 (21.4)	1 (7.1)	2 (14.3)
Important	4 (28.6)	8 (57.1)	0 (	2 (14.3)
Less important	1 (7.1)	2 (14.3)	5 (35.7)	6 (42.9)
Least important	1 (7.1)	1 (7.1)	8 (57.1)	4 (28.6)
Totals	14 (99.9)	14 (99.9)	14 (99.9)	14 (100.1)

This suggests that as currently structured, the Discussion Forum assignment is perceived as a series of unilateral messages to the instructor, rather than a sharing of knowledge across the group. This is perhaps not surprising, given that this is a graded assignment and it is the instructor who does the grading. Under the present arrangement, in other words, it may be that learning based on peer communication among students and motivation to prepare for classes might be inversely related, or at least a zero sum game in the minds of students, with the grading dimension as a key element in this thinking. This need not be the case: the data here suggest that to the extent an instructor wants to stress active learning among peers, the Discussion Forum assignment might be structured along some of the alternative lines suggested earlier, specifically including the grading of student comments on other student postings as part of the process. Heretofore, as can be seen in Appendix A, my own emphasis on this has been to grade comments and responses loosely as part of a Participation grade. The data also suggest a switch to fewer but longer-lived Forums.

It will be recalled from Table 1 that several students, 12 (6.5%) responded negatively, saying that in their estimation the Discussion Forum Assignment did not help their learning. All of these fell into the category “No, it didn't make much of a difference one way or the other.” No respondents chose the fifth option, which suggested that the assignment actually hindered their learning. The negative respondents, like the positive respondents, were offered four suggested ways in which the assignment might have been a negative experience for them, and then they were asked to rank these from most to least important. The four negative dimensions from which respondents could choose were:

	It was busy work that distracted me from focusing more intently on the readings;
	I omitted other major points in the readings because the Forum questions focused on only one specific dimension of the reading assignment;
	I often learned incorrect or inappropriate material from other students' messages; and
	I wasted too much time on the technical stuff: finding the page on the web, etc.

The number of negative respondents in this table is too small for definitive conclusions. Perhaps the most heuristic finding is that 11 (78.5%) of these respondents felt that the questions posed in the Discussion Forums forced them to focus too narrowly, impeding their overall grasp of assignments. While this may be in fact due to the construction of poor thought or reflection questions, it may also be the result of class discussions that ranged too far from the focused question and the relevant postings. In short, instructors should strive for high congruence between questions and classes. The negative response rated the most important overall is the “busy work” choice. Without additional data, it is hard to know if these are the best students—who do not need to be required to read before class—or the poorest students—who do not want to be required. Regardless, this is still perceived as the most negative dimension of the Discussion Forum assignment.

In addition to the more specific questions discussed above, the survey also included a summary overall question: when asked if the Discussion Forum assignment should be continued in future semesters, 150 students (82.9%) said yes, and another 12 (6.6%) said yes if unspecified modifications were implemented. That is, nine out of ten students overall (89.5%) thought it should be continued as an assignment. While there were complaints, by and large, students do not see the assignment as onerous or irrelevant. When the few relatively negative comments were tabulated as part of the survey, most suggested that doing more than one of these Forums during a single week was a problem to be avoided. Interestingly enough, some negative comments centered on the fact that the class meetings did not include enough direct emphasis on the contents of the Forums.

Let me turn finally to two other assessment dimensions, the amount of work this assignment requires of students and the technical issues that might have arisen with an assignment based on access to computers and the Internet. One does not want to overburden students, although we do want them to work in our courses. In this survey, 172 students (95%) thought the assignment was appropriate in the level of difficulty, seven respondents thought it too difficult and one student thought it too easy. In terms of their assessment of the time involved, 164 students (86%) thought the assignment took about the right amount of time, and 11 (6.1%) thought it took too much time. When asked how many minutes it took students to do this assignment, not counting the reading or viewing of the assignment itself, the range was from ten minutes through 120 minutes. Table 5 aggregates and reports these data.

Table 5. Minutes taken to complete assignment, self-reported

Category	Frequency (percentage)	Cumulative percentage
Less than 30 minutes	36 (20.0)	19.9
30–35 minutes	55 (30.4)	50.3
40–45 minutes	50 (27.7)	77.9
50–60 minutes	25 (13.8)	91.7
More than 60 minutes	15 (08.5)	99.8
Total	181 (100.4)

For these data, the Mean was 41.1 minutes, and the Median was 35 minutes. Of the 181 respondents, 50 (27.6%) answered 30 minutes, 41 (22.7%) answered 45 minutes, and 23 (12.7%) answered 60 minutes. Having been presented with choices rather than a blank fill-in question, students apparently chose to round out the time estimates, resulting in a tri-modal distribution. My impression, based on the content of postings, is that it probably takes students a little less time, and that these self-assessment data are perhaps slightly higher than what might be obtained “objectively.” Regardless, even these (perhaps inflated) student estimates of the time involved suggest that the Discussion Forum structure is not an onerous assignment in terms of its technical difficulty, its content difficulty, or the amount of time it takes.

Finally, any assignment using the computer and the Internet runs into questions of access and training. My survey supports the stereotype that students are at least a generation ahead of the rest of us: 168 (92.8%) had no technical problems at all either with access or with the nature of the assignment, or had an issue that was resolved after the first try. Of the 13 (7.0%) students who did have problems, all mentioned computer technology problems, typically that they could not get to a computer lab on campus in a timely fashion or that their personal computer was not functioning for a time during the semester. None thought the assignment itself was technically unmanageable. Moreover, as seen in Table 4, of the 14 the negative respondents, 10 (71.5%) ranked technical issues as the least important reason why the assignment did not improve their learning. Finally, note that the data in this study date from 2003 and earlier; it is clear that recent entering classes of university students are more sophisticated, with higher levels of computer access than even five years ago. In the past four semesters, I have had to conduct a “workshop” for this assignment only once, for one student. I have never felt the need to spend more than five minutes of class time, once per semester, to explain the technical aspects of this assignment.

Conclusion

Given the need to “cover” certain amounts of material in a course and the desire to use discussion classes to help students become more actively involved in their learning, I have used the Discussion Forum assignment in response to two longstanding concerns for instructors in Political Science: how to get students prepared for class and how to get them to talk intelligently during a discussion. Classroom time is too scarce—and perhaps the psychological costs to instructors are too high—to risk scheduling discussion classes that might fall flat and be unproductive. The major factor, if a discussion format is going to be successful, is the level of student preparation. Combining the use of thought questions with Internet based Discussion Forums, structured as a graded and required assignment, raises the probability that more students would be more well prepared more of the time. Taken in class preparation terms, the data presented above support the conclusion that this assignment does have a positive impact. Used as part of a pedagogical strategy that includes using student input as part of the subject of classroom meetings, the Discussion Forum assignment does lead to more student activity in my courses prior to class meetings.

Does this assignment also produce better learning? Students themselves overwhelmingly state that the assignment helped their own learning. Moreover, based on the content of exams and papers, and especially on class participation, my impressionistic answer is yes, but a more rigorous analysis would depend on different data than those collected for this paper. If one accepts the notion that active involvement with material leads generally to more effective learning, than several aspects of the Discussion Forum assignment lend weight to at least tentative hypotheses supporting this conclusion. The most obvious is that students are actively engaging in classroom-related activity outside of the classroom by posting reflections and reading postings from other students. As noted above, my structuring of the assignment leads to much more of this activity before class meetings than after, but minor tinkering with the structure of the assignment could expand the time frame even further.

Second, classroom time is spent more effectively. Because the Forum postings allow the instructor to assess responses to assignments before class, the instructor can select topics for lecturing and/or for discussion more efficiently. As noted above, taking advantage of this opportunity requires that an instructor come to the course with a pedagogy that values the use of student input. But even for others, there is value here. For example, a stereotypical lecture-based class meeting might include an effective lecture for most of the time frame, followed by an opportunity for “any questions?” Using the Discussion Forum assignment, the instructor would have the option of seeing these questions before the lecture and could plan accordingly. A third dimension of the assignment is the other side of this same coin: when students see that their input matters in terms of class meetings, they seem to become more invested in, and actively engaged with, the course material. ¹²

Fourth, the combination of 1) better pre-class preparation—by students as well as Instructors—and 2) more effective discussions means that more class time can be spent on higher order analytic questions, on synthesis rather than solely on the primary presentation of new material via lectures. (Yet lecturing is certainly not precluded, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.) Particularly in liberal arts settings, faculty should strive to produce these lifelong learning skills in students. This assignment seems to provide a good opportunity to move in that direction. And last, the assignment forces students to do more writing than might otherwise be the case, and the discussion format in the following class meetings forces them both to be more involved and to speak more frequently. Both of these dimensions point to more active learning.

Finally, while the ideas from works cited earlier inspired and informed the development of this assignment, it is worth stressing that the Discussion Forum assignment is possible, as I run it, because of computer technology and course management software. The Discussion Forum assignment speaks powerfully, in my view, to the potential role of technology in higher education, even as a supplement in traditional face-to-face classrooms. While we are justifiably enthusiastic about the Internet as a medium for the dissemination of (course) materials, I want to stress that this relatively simple use of the Internet as an interactive medium offers us a wonderful opportunity to refine our pedagogy to improve student learning. Nevertheless, more research is needed on the overall impact of technology on student learning.

More research is also needed to investigate these and other such questions regarding the learning impact of activities such as the Discussion Forum assignment. The most obvious path for future research is to make it more comparative, for example, by collecting similar data on student perceptions of other types of assignments. Cross institutional comparisons would also control some of the potentially parochial aspects of this project. Within a single institution or department, researchers might use a control group and/or more objective measures of pre-class preparation and of “learning.”

I hope my efforts, as described in this paper, will have helped in this development.

Appendix A: The Discussion Forum Assignment

Overview

Most of our class meetings are devoted to discussion rather than lectures. To ensure that these discussions are of high quality and worth our time investment, student input is central to the process. You provide that input by posting messages to a Discussion Forum on ANGEL, before class meetings. Each of the assigned Discussion Forums has specific questions or instructions. The Discussion Forums themselves are found in the Discussion Forums Folder under this same Lessons tab. The Course Outline lists the dates for each Discussion Forum.

These Discussion Forums provide students with a good opportunity to share their knowledge and to see what others are thinking about our course material. These are student discussions, so the instructor rarely participates but may reply or comment. We will often refer to these postings during our class meetings. Indeed, students should come to class meetings prepared to ask someone else about their message and prepared to be asked about their own posting. These messages are central to our class discussions. This assignment counts 20% of the final course grade—it's a major part of the identity and pedagogy of this course. There are many details below, besides these summary points:

	Posting messages is a frequent and regular course activity. There are many such opportunities.
	Besides the primary messages themselves, you should plan to Reply or Comment on messages posted by other students. How you do on this aspect will affect your Participation Grade for the course.
	Other objectives of this assignment are:
	to help ensure that students have prepared for class meetings;
	to increase communication and learning among students—who may read each other's messages; and
	to provide students an opportunity to contribute to the choice of discussion topics in those class meetings.
	The Course Outline lists the dates and readings for each Discussion Forum.
	All Discussion Forums are viewable at all times on the course's ANGEL page; and they will be archived so that you can see a summary document with all the postings and replies in any one Forum.
	For each of these Discussion Forums, there is a specific question or other specific instructions.
	The overall grade for this activity is worth 20% of the overall course grade.
	You may improve your grade in this assignment if you Help The Teacher! See the separate web page for that optional assignment.

Details

	To fulfill this requirement, you post a message to the appropriate Discussion Forum before the scheduled class. Normally, the deadline for posting is 11:00 PM the night before the class meeting. Any primary postings made after 11:00 PM may not count. Students may reply or comment on postings up to about 8:00 AM when the instructor rolls around and grades these postings. Students may, indeed should, read other students' postings before class.
	Because each Discussion Forum contains specific instructions and at least one specific question, always begin by visiting the Discussion Forum before doing the reading and before preparing a posting for this assignment.
	An adequate message can usually be written in a paragraph or two. Occasionally, you may find yourself composing longer messages, which is more than welcome, but not necessary in terms of credit. See below for evaluation details.
	Comments and Replies to other students' messages are a key part of this assignment, in as much as the assignment hopes to encourage dialogue among students. Plus, Comments and Replies will affect your Participation grade for the course. (See that page for details.)
	Note that participating in any single Discussion Forum is optional—you don't have to do every Discussion Forum, so don't worry if you miss one. But obviously—see the Grids below—the overall assignment is not optional, so plan carefully.

Technical Considerations

	Before preparing a message for posting, visit the appropriate Discussion Forum for specific instructions and/or questions to answer in your message.
	To post a message, open your Internet browser, log on to ANGEL, open this course and find the current Forum, under the Lessons tab.
	Only students enrolled in this course can post messages on these Forums.
	You might want to click on Threaded View in order to see who has responded to whom.
	You may read any already existing message by clicking on it.
	You may post a message by clicking on Post a Message, and you can fill in the title of your message and the text (by cutting and pasting) in the appropriate boxes.
	When you're through, get some sleep before class. (Or if it's early AM, get some breakfast so you come to class happy.)
	I recommend preparing your message in Word. When you are finished, copy and paste the message into the Board's text box form.
	If you wish, however, you may compose the message directly in the text box on the Discussion Forum's page.
	You can post a follow-up reply message to any message already posted by following similar instructions.
	Although you can add attachments to your messages, do not do so instead of typing (or pasting) in your message's text, as this makes it more difficult for others to read your message. Use attachments only for genuine attachments.
	The date and time of your message will be logged automatically by the ANGEL server.

Evaluation

Normally, posted messages are graded as “Pass/Fail,” as suggested below. Rarely, an excellent message may earn an extra point.

For each posting:

Table

No message posted; or a particularly weak message that shows little thought or familiarity with the assignment	No points
Message posted, question answered with clarity and well-connected to the content of the reading; able to discuss the message in class. This is the “normal” grade: most messages get 1 point.	1 point
Particularly insightful, interesting, or provocative message. These will be relatively rare—many students go the semester without any of these.	2 points

Overall grade for this assignment:

Table

To get an overall grade in the A range at the end of the semester, you need at least	17 Points
To get an overall grade in the B range at the end of the semester, you need at least	14 Points
To get an overall grade in the C range at the end of the semester, you need at least	11 Points
To get an overall grade in the D range at the end of the semester, you need at least	8 Points
You earn an F for this assignment if you have less than	8 Points

Two final points:

	Note that you can increase your point total in this assignment if you Help The Teacher!, an optional assignment with its own page in the Assignments folder.
	Finally, note that your Participation grade for the course will be affected by the number and quality of the Replies and Comments you post in response to other students' messages. The range on this is a four point swing: your Participation grade can go up as many as 2 points or down as many as 2 points. See that page for details.

Previous Student Comments

	“I hate having other students read my answers to our thought questions. Why can't I just deal directly with the Instructor? He gives the grades, after all.” (Maury Whiner, Spring 1999 class);
	“I love reading other people's comments before class. It's a great way to liven up my evenings.” (Lucy Needsalife, Fall, 2001 class).

Appendix B: Sample Archived Discussion Forum

Introductory Notes

The question informing this Forum: “comment generally about the book (your likes, dislikes, surprises, shocks, etc.); OR comment on Volgy's arguments about trust and empathy and democracy.” Students had previously read Keith Hjortshoj's The Transition to College Writing (2001), which includes comments on “predatory reading,” a technique that encourages more thoughtful and selective reading assignments. There are occasional references to this in this archived Forum. This Forum was the third one of the semester and took place in the third week. The class is mostly first semester students, with a handful of sophomores. Most students were not Political Science majors in this Intro to Political Science course. It was an Honors level class. Postings and comments are numbered sequentially; last names have been removed.

The Archived Forum

1. Why Would Anyone Want to Be a Politician?

   Jen—9/14/2003 11:24 AM, 9/14/2003 11:24:44 AM

   I put my predatory reading into use on Volgy's book Politics in the Trenches, since it took me only a few hours to complete the entire book, whereas linear reading would have taken much longer. But let's move on from Hjortshoj's teachings into Volgy's. I actually enjoyed this book, surprising as it may seem. I thought Volgy made an interesting combination of biographical information and instructive information about life as a politician. His biographical information formed a beginning to start from so the audience could understand where this man was coming from when he went into depth about trust, empathy, and democracy. I especially enjoyed the schedule of his day, because it showed just how hectic a politician's life is, and how they really have little time for what most people take for granted. I also liked how he threaded the idea of political empathy, or lack thereof throughout the entire book. At the beginning he describes the American people as ones sorely lacking of empathy for politicians—after a slew of scandals and political escapades, who could blame them, right? But Volgy's book shows a different side to political life. He shows that some politicians are actually good people, and that they want to really make a difference and help the community. His description of a city council meeting and the massive amount that they had to undertake on a normal day, as compared to the coverage shown on the news at night, shows just how neglected the actual work of these politicians is. This point, however surprising at first, is clearly true. How many people really do know what the elected officials are doing most of the time? Sometimes, on controversial issues, people perk their ears up to see what the politician is going to do, but most of the time, the general public does not care enough to even pick up a newspaper to find out what's affecting them locally. People seem to not care, as long as what's going on does not have a negative affect. As soon as a politician makes a mistake, or supports a piece of legislation that does not help that person, suddenly all the other things that the politician did are forgotten, if they were ever even known. This is the state of American politics today, and this is what Volgy was trying to inform the public. This, although not all that surprising, was one of the most important points that Volgy made in his book.

2. Understanding, not Empathy

   Nicole—9/15/2003 05:07 PM, 9/15/2003 5:07:11 PM

   “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” Lord Acton. The very crux of the American democracy is that of confrontation and a natural distrust in government. “We the People” serve as an invaluable check on the systems of government that we live in, and we are bound by civic duty to be the opposition of those in power, to protect our natural rights. It is natural then, that the American people begin to grow less and less empathetic with their leaders. Is it not the lack of empathy and trust from the American people that drives many politicians away from tyrannical temptations? Rather than empathy, it would make more sense to make a call for more involved and educated citizenry, creating a deeper political understanding. There is a fine line between greater understanding and empathy. Empathy involves not only an understanding of the motives, interests and desires of another, but it also involves a certain identification with an individual, in Volgy's case, a political leader. Such identification is an unrealistic approach toward American politics. Understanding is an unbiased collection of information which is left unfinished for the informed to calculate their own opinions and interests. Therefore, it is understanding that is the predecessor to empathy or identification, or lack thereof. Self interest fuels both the American political and economic systems; competing self interests are what create the American democracy and the free-market. In some respects, it disappoints me that Volgy vilifies special interest groups the way that [he] does. Is it not the right of special interest groups to support campaigns that support their own causes? Such interest groups represent valuable campaign funds and constituencies, of which politicians should have the option of serving. Just because a candidate spends more than $500,000 on a campaign, should the American public automatically assume that the candidate's money is “likely not being spent for good government but to further narrow self-interest,” as on page 183? That does not sound like a particularly empathetic suggestion to me. The fact that Volgy calls for such stark campaign finance reform demonstrates that he does not trust or empathize with many politicians himself! Why else would he call for a law to prevent politicians from dipping into the “evil temptations” of interest groups. What I would choose to derive from Volgy's suggestions on protecting the American democracy is a promotion of civic virtue and understanding. Here, I agree with Volgy's suggestions on pressuring the media to report, in greater detail, the political happenings of the community. In addition to education through the media, children should be taught a greater civic responsibility in schools, so that by the time they emerge into their “political rights” they will be also be prepared for their civic responsibility. By reinforcing the value of politics in America, both the good and the bad, the future of America would be able to formulate their own, more sound, opinions. From this perspective Americans would be preserving their critical approach to democracy, while protecting it through better information and a greater understanding.

3. When the Credibility and Legitimacy of the System Are in Doubt

   Katie—9/15/2003 05:54 PM, 9/15/2003 5:54:08 PM

   “The ultimate threat to stable democracies, however, is more likely to come when the credibility and legitimacy of the system are in doubt” (Volgy 2001, 26). This quote from Politics in the Trenches summarizes what I believe Volgy was trying to get across to his audience in his writing of this book. He goes into detail about the many things that he thinks are jeopardizing the system of democracy in America and presents possible solutions. He extends a metaphor of the political laboratory vs. the scientific laboratory throughout the entire book. This was extremely helpful in allowing me to understand the idea of the political laboratory. However, Volgy makes it clear that scientific experimentation is not as difficult as experimentation in the political laboratory is. He explains that the politicians do not have the theoretical knowledge and empirical data that scientists have. I never actually realized how difficult it is to judge the results of policies that are implemented in the real world. Scientific experiments have control groups, while political experiments have many different factors influencing them that can not necessarily be helped. It is amazing that anything ever gets accomplished in the political laboratory due to all of the difficulties facing the experimenters. All they can do is experiment, which does not always result in the resolution of social problems. When I learned about the difficulty of their positions, I felt much more respect for the work that they do. Although there were parts of Volgy's book that surprised me, such as the difficulty of the experimentation in the political laboratory, there were also parts that did not. In chapter four, he talked about the perks of office: they hardly get any. In fact, they suffered losses. The responsibilities of office were not even able to be covered by the resources available. This is appalling, yet not necessarily surprising. Officeholders have to pay for many things out of pocket, and leave some things undone due to lack of funding. However, this seems as if it is unknown by many citizens. For example, I often believed that politicians got major perks that they should not necessarily be receiving. This is obviously not the case. However, this false belief creates animosity towards these officials. The lack of knowledge and the assumptions made by citizens based on a few “crooked” politicians we might have heard of ruins the sense of empathy we should have towards our government. Meanwhile, Volgy points out how much money is spent on political campaigns. Maybe some of this money should be spent on the politicians in the laboratory who need more resources to fulfill their jobs to the best of their abilities. In chapter five Volgy illustrated a day in the life of a politician that was eyeopening. If I ever had aspirations to become involved in government, that chapter made me think twice. I was shocked by the amount of time that Volgy had to spend working. If his example is true of all politicians, then they are due a lot of credit that they do not get. The job that they do is very demanding and difficult. Saying the wrong thing in a certain situation, or not being able to fully explain your actions could quickly result in public disapproval. The section regarding the media and the government was enlightening as well. The feeling of distrust that I already had for the media was heightened by Volgy's insights. The media (especially television) is in it for the entertainment value rather than for information. Therefore, one of the easiest ways that citizens can learn about their government is not a good and honest source of information. The news is often biased, so it is almost impossible for people to make their own decisions about elected officials or the decisions these officials have made. The news the media often portrays politicians in a negative light. This causes the citizens to distrust them, which in turn does not allow the politicians to get anything done. As Volgy says, this results in a lack of empathy between the citizen and the politician. The media helps to perpetuate the never-ending cycle of mistrust between the elected official and the citizen. This brings us back to the ultimate threat to democracies. Citizens mistrust the system and doubt the people working in the laboratory. This is perpetuated by lack of knowledge as well as false knowledge introduced by the media. Volgy offers several possible solutions, but to me it seems as if he is grasping at straws, and if they were to be implemented, it could take years to do so and by then it might be too late.

4. Tear-Jerker

   Tom—9/15/2003 06:13 PM, 9/15/2003 6:13:54 PM

   Since I find most postings long and boring, I'll keep mine short. Volgy gave a very sad account of politicians. I feel sorry for them—pity them—to be the recipients of abuse from the media, citizens, and other politicians after all their hard work. To become a politician is to sell your soul to the public to be cursed, mistreated, and destroyed. They sow much and reap little. I am amazed that there are people willing to live in such a hellish life. I would never volunteer to be bothered for 18 hours a day. I think Volgy has unintentionally made me never want to become a politician. By looking for empathy, Volgy has only received my sympathy. Tear, tear.

   		4A Empathy, Apathy, Sympathy Nicole—9/15/2003 06:59 PM, 9/15/2003 6:59:07 PM In agreement with Tom, I also feel that much of Volgy's plea for so-called empathy was entered through a list of grievances, which in-turn was counterproductive. Volgy came across as whiny—it would have more sense for him to have begged for sympathy rather than empathy, because then, he had a better case for it. Volgy's entire work was weakened by his confusion of Empathy (as Sympathy) acting an answer for apathy and distrust. As you can see, I have little patience for sympathy-mongers, and when that patience runs out, all the mongers get is more apathy and distrust…
   		4B re: Tear-Jerker Jen—9/15/2003 10:17 PM, 9/15/2003 10:17:31 PM I like how you kept it short, and yet your point was strong. I completely agree. I at one point had the feeling “wow, it would be pretty cool to be a politician.” Now I'm definitely not having those same thoughts. This book really opened my eyes to how hard many politicians work with little recognition for what they really do. A few bad politicians ruined the reputation of all of them. Unfair, but that's how life is.

5. And Tonight's Political Scandal Is…

   Marisa—9/15/2003 06:38 PM, 9/15/2003 6:38:42 PM

   While reading the reasons democracy is failing, I realized something rather significant. Volgy claims it is failing partially due to a lack of interest and/or understanding in politics in general; I happen to fall into the category of not understanding a lot of the world of politics. In fact, that was one of the main reasons I wanted to take this course. It's amazing that in a country where the citizens are given the ultimate power of deciding who will win the race for president, senator, etc…that they aren't more interested in what exactly these people are supposed to be doing in their “laboratory.” When the politician is elected, citizens often can be heard discussing their viewpoints on certain issues and claiming that the politician isn't doing something right. However, if you were to ask them what exactly was needed to make a bill pass or fix up that building downtown, they would most likely stutter and tell you they didn't know. Another interesting point that Volgy made is how little we really are shown about political events due to restrictive media coverage. He mentioned that an in-depth debate on a health care issue may be covered in less than two minutes on the news and coverage of a congressional floor debate may be fashioned to paint the candidate in a certain light, either by showing a specific part of his speech or by splicing different parts together. The media seems to frequently use sneaky techniques to get a negative response to the politician, and as Volgy said, not all politicians are bad ones. One thing I never thought about was how the media can impact the home life of a politician and how constant coverage of a politician's children, marriage, and social excursions can often to lead to tension within a family. When Volgy was discussing the impact media scrutiny can have on a child, he talked about how Chelsea Clinton must have felt hearing bad things about her father. I realized how upset that would make me, knowing that everyone in the nation is passing judgment on my father and publicly humiliating him on a regular basis. I agree that in order for our society to continue on as a true democracy, we must begin to understand what the job of a politician entails and try to appreciate what they do for us.

6. Many Blood Sucking Insects (Politics)

   Jordan—9/15/2003 08:15 PM, 9/15/2003 8:15:22 PM

   As I prowled the pages of Volgy's book, I couldn't help but realize that American government is in an interesting position. It seems that the government needs change or reformation, yet the resources that would allow it to get these things (the people/us) are at the same time becoming less and less involved in their government and its inner and outer workings. Volgy points this out, and I think it is an interesting dynamic. The less we trust our government and the more skeptical we grow of our officials (myself included) the more our democracy needs us. How can we combat this problem, if we can do so at all? I liked Volgy's use of the analogy of a laboratory. He compared the laboratory to the modern day political system and its successes and failures, etc. As Volgy drew this comparison, I realized that we shouldn't be quite so ready to criticize our government for its shortcomings on such things as legislation to help the poor, etc. The laboratory analogy helped me to realize that government and lawmaking is not an exact science. Sometimes things don't work out the way lawmakers had hoped, so they try again, much as experiments in science labs are tested and re-tested. I found Volgy's book to be interesting in that it was a fresh perspective on politics. Normally all I hear about from the media is how corrupt things are. It was nice to gain a fresh perspective and to find out that perhaps this government of ours is serving us well. One final question: if all politicians were crooks, liars and theives, would they tell us?

7. “Mother Should I Trust the Government?”*

   John—9/15/2003 08:46 PM, 9/15/2003 8:46:03 PM

   “The foundation of democracy is a well-educated electorate.” These are the words of Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of our American democracy (paraphrased). I was reminded of this quote while reading Volgy's thoughts about empathy. Volgy agrees with Jefferson, saying that a lack of empathy is a serious problem in the United States. Education is much more than reading, writing, and arithmetic. It also involves problem solving, understanding, and knowledge about specific subjects. I think that what Jefferson meant, and Volgy would agree, is that the electorate must be well educated about the democracy. It is the responsibility of the voters to know and understand what the current issues are, what politicians' positions are about these issues, and develop a well-formed opinion about the subject. Simply blankly declaring an opinion on an issue is not the proper way to run a democracy. I think the answer to Pink Floyd's question, which is the title of this posting, is that people should be able to trust their government if they can trust the people who voted those with power to office. In a perfect democracy, the officials in office will accurately represent the opinions of the majority of citizens. I agree with Volgy that unless empathy is increased among the American people, the “democracy is in trouble” (169). Trust needs to be rekindled in the American system, and this has to start with education. *Pink Floyd, ‘Mother’, “The Wall” 1979.

8. Repetition, Idealism, and Problems in American Politics

   Laura—9/15/2003 09:02 PM, 9/15/2003 9:02:06 PM

   Personally, I thought that this Volgy reading was a lot easier to digest than the first Susser chapter, and way more interesting than the Hjortshoj (even though that predatory reading did come in handy). Although I agree with Volgy's theory on a lack of empathy and understanding in American politics, I found the book itself to be repetitive. Yes, politicians are busy. But a twenty page chapter detailing the events of a mayor's week was a bit unnecessary. Also, I thought that Volgy, unlike Susser, showed some bias towards good, honest, and especially, local officials. He makes a valid point in saying that not all politicians are in it for the fame and glory, but he doesn't admit that these CAN be motives for some of the candidates that run for office. Although it may hold true for Volgy himself, I found it optimistic (and even a little naïve) to say that all politicians run for office for the “psychological gratification taken from having a positive impact [on society].” There were some points that I did find interesting. One is his comparison between a political scientist working in society and a natural scientist working in a lab. I never really considered how much experimentation is actually needed to develop sound policies, and politicians really only get one shot to create a working policy before the media attacks. It doesn't seem fair when you think about it. Then again, it's the public's lack of understanding and their lack of interest that gives the media such an upper hand. So in the end, despite its repetition and occasional idealism, Volgy's book helps to point out some serious problems in American politics, and suggests some real solutions to encourage change.

9. Is the Problem Lack of Empathy, or Simply the Public's Apathy?

   Bryan—9/15/2003 09:42 PM, 9/15/2003 9:42:18 PM

   While reading the first chapter of Volgy's work, I began to think about the threat posed to our system of government by the public's lack of empathy. Could democracy actually fail because people didn't understand how the system really worked? As I continued to read more of the book, though, I realized that I myself didn't know the challenges that a political figure faced on a daily basis. In fact, I realized that I could never hold political office myself because of the excessive amount of work required in a single day. At the same time, though, I also decided that I feel no sympathy for the public officials that are forced to endure such long hours and such annoying problems that Volgy described in his daily routine. Instead, I realized that all elected officials had chosen to run for office knowing ahead of time (if they did their research) that the job would require most of their time. Therefore, people do not necessarily need to empathize with politicians, but should instead simply understand the processes of government. The problem is, though, that most people do not understand the everyday workings of government. Despite Volgy's criticism of the media for not covering most of the parts of the process that occur daily, the media itself cannot be held completely responsible for this lack of coverage. In fact, the media covers the stories that the public demands, and the public does not demand information about the less-controversial procedural decisions. The public thirsts for division and argument and wants to know when controversy plagues the government. This is why opinion-based media outlets like Fox News attract more viewers than C-SPAN. Therefore, the true problem with our democracy is based not upon the public's lack of empathy, but upon the apathy of the American people towards the daily actions of government. Until people become interested in the less-controversial aspects of government, the public and the government will continue to operate in seemingly separate worlds.

10. Hillary Clinton: Can Scandal Disguise Political Achievements?

    Matthew—9/15/2003 10:01 PM, 9/15/2003 10:01:27 PM

    After reading Volgy's novel on the lack of empathy for politicians in America, I feel compelled to be more informed on local, state, and national issues that affect my life. I can certainly relate to Volgy's stereotype of Americans, someone who views politicians by their public persona and mistakes, rather than their stance on political issues. When Hillary Clinton ran for Senator in New York State, I was surrounded by negative propaganda, including bumper stickers that read, “Hillary, Not here, Not now, Not ever.” Raised by a conservative father, I complained about the election of such a seemingly unworthy candidate. Frankly, I was not impressed by a woman who would move to a state in order to gain political power, especially one who would stay with her husband after such a humiliating scandal. Volgy has made me realize that I never stopped to consider Hillary's political goals or public policies. Not once was I inspired to research her political history, agenda, or aspirations. Is it my duty as a registered voter to be completely educated before I step into a voting booth? On page 108 Volgy describes his continuing amazement “that an entire day's worth of collective decision-making, based on months of prior work, is distilled into a few column inches.” As I read the paper, it occurs to me that the entire story cannot be fully related in a single article, but how much of the actual event am I oblivious to? Volgy's book still leaves me somewhat confused as to how I can become a more educated, involved citizen. As I read through his description of an average week, I completely sympathize with his situation because on a less public and professional level I can relate. I find myself struggling to balance school work, laundry, social events, crew team, and other obligations at college. To add political research on local politicians and political events to this overwhelming schedule seems impossible. Apparently slanted news articles and reporting will have to suffice until I find free time for thorough political research. In summary, Volgy's book has taught me to look further into the agendas of politicians and research ‘scandelmongering’ reports in order to understand both sides of the position. When talking to family members about how they decide who to vote for in a given election, the most common answer I receive is, ‘I choose based on what kind of person the politician is, rather than his political party.’ Volgy points out that this ideology must be reformed because citizens are voting based on their impression of a candidate rather than his political goals and policies. In the coming months I hope to become a more educated citizen and incorporate my new knowledge when voting on November 4th.

11. Whoa -oh-oh…Tainted What?

    Micaela—9/15/2003 10:26 PM, 9/15/2003 10:26:05 PM

    Tom Volgy, member of the Democratic Party. His party affiliation was not printed out in black and white, I had to look it up…or did I? Do I think he did a very good job of masking his political affiliation throughout the book? Certainly not. His support for campaign finance reform, emphasis on family values, and sympathy for the hardworking American left on the streets jobless were definitively Democratic views. Starting backwards I'll address my last surprise first. In Chapter nine, Volgy made a bold statement regarding what should be done to increase empathy the American people have for the political laboratory. His first proposal called for a return to party allegiance. The manner in which he attacked both the Democratic and Republican parties made me wonder exactly where he stood for a moment. But then, ah, he made somewhat of a stab at the Republicans, “Certainly the conservative wing of the Republican Party has made noises in this direction (171)” direction meaning splitting apart. Volgy's focus on local politics and the hardworking underappreciated local politician was consistently incorporated into almost every issue he addressed. But, ho! What is this? It seems the people already have the answer. Volgy states that although empathy is diminishing, there are new reformists who can change our country. Volgy reiterates that change begins on the local level. He speaks then of people who might be disgruntled with the activities of a school board and seek out information. They begin to attend council meetings. “Small armies” are formed, and these average people are getting elected into local positions of power. They learn about the political process and open others eyes to what goes on in the “laboratory” as they keep close contact with their supporters. But does the small start really lead to change on a large scale? Volgy alludes to a small group using their voices enough to start Earth Day celebrations. As the activism had success and reached a national scale…it became corrupt. Politicians who voted against environmental protection were leading the Earth Day parades. I'm confused. What are we to do if as soon as policy is taken out of local hands and into an already tainted (as Volgy said it was in Chapter 8) media spotlight, it becomes a device for vote gaining? And apparently most successful reformists will not be voted into positions, according to Volgy. Woe is me…let's back track. I really thought that Volgy's portrayal of the psychology of the local government hero and how their self-interest is somehow deactivated when they are in power in a smaller land area was accurate. It did surprise me however, how much he fluffed his own feathers (I don't even know if that is an actual cliché…maybe I coined a new one) throughout the book. The local official really is made out to look like a hero. All I could keep thinking was “Buddy Cianci, Buddy Cianci.” In Chapter six, Volgy mentions how difficult it is to find “expertise” for every need with limited local governing populations. It never really occurred to me that there might not be someone who knew how to tackle a certain public concern in a town. When Volgy mentioned that sometimes mayors and council members don't even affiliate themselves with a political party, I began to wonder about his affiliation, by the way. He makes some extreme statements about campaign finance reform. Asking the public to not support any candidate that accepts money from political action committees or vote for any candidate that spends too much money is quite a lot to ask. He has quite the Machiavellian view of politicians as he closes with the statement, “the money is most likely not being spent for good government but to further narrow self interest.”

    		11A re: Whoa -oh-oh…Tainted What? David—9/15/2003 11:26 PM, 9/15/2003 11:26:25 PM Micaela, you're analysis of Volgy's main points were very creative and extremely on target. I did feel that there was a little ‘feather fluffing’ taking place, and the tone of his entire book was very ‘woe is me.’ However, having lived in a state (Rhode Island) were local politics are defined by their corruption, I do find it difficult to feel bad for Volgy or any local politician. When people like Buddy Cianci and John Harwood are continually elected to local offices in Rhode Island, you begin to wonder about whether there are any good politicians at all. I'm sure there are because according to Volgy they just go under the media's radar. Pardon the sarcasm, but enough Rhode Island politics will do that to you.
    		11B Tainted, but So What? Thomas—9/16/2003 12:36 AM, 9/16/2003 12:36:06 AM Micaela, Volgy's party affiliation and views were abundantly clear to me as they were to you throughout the book. But I dissagree with your posting in that it seems that you believe he was “masking his political affiliation.” Right from the beginning Volgy tells the reader which party he belongs to. And although you seem to think he did not print this information in black and white, he did indeed do so. In the introduction he refered to the Democratic party on page 15 as the party he “liked.” Later in the book he also deliberately states that the Democratic is his party. I agree with you completlely about the philosophy he holds, but I fail to see how it detracts from the book. In fact it would go against his view that taking a stand on the issues is important if he did not include some personal feelings pertinent to the book. So I see what you're seeing, but I don't see why you're saying it.

12. If You Don't Like It, Don't Just Sit There, Do Something!

    Amanda—9/15/2003 10:35 PM, 9/15/2003 10:35:42 PM

    I have to admit that before I read this book, I never gave any thought to how much work local politicians have to do. Therefore I found this book rather enlightening, although, as several other people have stated, some points were rather drawn out. For example, the point made in chapter five, “A Week in the Life” could have probably been made just as effectively in a chapter called “A Day in the Life”. Since I was practicing predatory reading, I must admit that I only really looked at the first day and then skimmed the rest of the chapter. After reading the first day, it seemed that the whole point of the chapter was to convey how busy a local politician is. One point that I found interesting was that local politicians often need to take on two jobs in order to survive. This made me question many of the common complaints that Volgy said mayors and council members often receive. For example, how can we possibly expect them to devote all of their time to their job if we cannot afford to pay them enough to survive on? But since some local politicians do not spend all of their time at their political job, we accuse them of not being truly interested in the community or of not being properly devoted to their job. Finally, I wanted to mention a point brought about on page 48 that I really likee, and that basically applies to any aspect in life. The county chair says to Volgy “How can you criticize the incumbent without trying to do something about getting rid of him when you have the chance?” Everyone can apply this to their lives, because all she is really saying is that you can't complain about something you aren't willing to help change. If we want to make our country more empathetic towards local politicians then we have to get out there and start doing something ourselves to generate a change. And if we don't like our local governments, well then we just have to get involved. In general, this book was really interesting, and I want to leave you with my favorite quote from the book. “‘Making laws is like making sausage. You'll like the taste once you're actually eating it, but not if you see how it's made’”(110).

    		12A re: If You Don't Like It, Don't Just Sit There, Do Something! David—9/15/2003 11:29 PM, 9/15/2003 11:29:28 PM Amanda, I, too, enjoyed the quote about the sausage-making. However, I am ignorant as to the process of making a sausage so the analogy wasn't as effective for me. But any analogy that compares politics to food gets a A + for effort in my book. My only question is why should we want our country to be more empathetic toward local politicians? I'm not quite sure they have earned it.
    		12B re: If You Don't Like It, Don't Just Sit There, Do Something! Rebecca—9/15/2003 11:44 PM, 9/15/2003 11:44:33 PM I just wanted to say that I definitely agreed with your statement about taking action. So many people criticize the government on a daily basis but aren't willing to interrupt their lives to try to make a difference. I feel that even more people don't take the time to simply stay up on current events and other government issues, and yet they still ignorantly criticize the government.

13. Why Should I Believe Anything You Say? You're a Politician.

    Jillian—9/15/2003 10:40 PM, 9/15/2003 10:40:02 PM

    Throughout Volgy's book, he stresses this idea that the public is to blame for our political system being in the dump. And to top it all off, the reason we are responsible is because the common citizen doesn't empathize with the hardships that the politician faces within his or her job. While I agree that politicians face a lot of difficult situations and the answers to their questions aren't always cut and dry, this is no excuse for blaming the public. The public does have a negative view towards politicians, but it hasn't been fueled by the common man alone. As Volgy says, the media and self-serving politicians do influence these views profusely, but why should the common man be to blame for that? Besides, the media can't expose something that isn't there to expose. Intelligent people don't swallow anything without having a source of fact to back it up. Volgy is right to champion a politician's main objective, but what he fails to reflect is that this objective is more of an ideal. Democracy embraces certain ideals, such as, the ethics of hard work, honesty, and a desire to be a leader in public service. However, this isn't something that can be seen very much anymore, even in the most motivated, bright-eyed politician. A politician may start out with good intentions, but he or she quickly becomes wrapped up in the cunning and intrigue of the political game, and then, the focus has shifted to a life of elegance and the perks of the job. Volgy calls these people the psychological entrepeneurs, but I believe that all politicians evolve to this stage for want of their own personal gain, which is a very complex part of human nature. Volgy repeatedly praises the politician for all the risks he or she takes,as well as all the sacrifices made. This is true to the nature of the job. The public shouldn't bend its standards on this issue, nor on the issue of high moral standard. People who are in public office should be held accountable to a higher standard because they have been asked to take on a difficult job with many obligations and responsibilities. They represent the ideals that this country is meant to stand for. If they can't live up to these standards, then they shouldn't stay in office. Scandal is created from people who have stayed in office long after they have succumbed to the “perks” of the job. When this occurs, and it will eventually, as man is greedy for power and luxury, this ultimately means that the politician has lost his/her focus. The politician is “burnt out”, and it's time to get out before more harm is done in the way of the people than good. I do agree with Volgy on the issue that citizens need to take a more active role in government and not be so passive. It is not the citizen's responsibility to preserve the ideals of democracy. That burden falls more on the politician than anyone else. However, since political systems are faulty due to the ideologies of its politicians, there is a need for public intervention to keep politicians walking the straight and narrow. This is truer nowhere else than in the issue of campaign reform. By bringing up this issue, I felt that Volgy was almost contradicting himself. On the one hand, he's saying that politicians aren't crooked. On the other hand, he's saying that the outcome of a political race is greatly determined by the money contributed by interest groups. This is the greatest example in the argument that politicians are crooks. No one is allowed to accept something for nothing, especially large sums of money. Democracy is slowly deteriorating because politicians seek to exploit their ideologies through the media, and in the process, destroy the competition, whether worthy or not, by any means possible. In a world overrun by technology and communication, the average citizen possesses very few resources that provide an avenue to confront the manipulations of the media and politicians.

14. From the Eyes of a Politician…

    Rebecca—9/15/2003 11:06 PM, 9/15/2003 11:06:02 PM

    After reading Volgy's book, I have to say that it gave me a completely different perspective of politics than I had ever had before. I have often thought about the fact that many of the citizens of this country are not knowledgeable about the workings of government or the political and social issues that affect them everyday. This, in turn, is directly connected to the low voter turnout that Volgy describes. Whether this lack of awareness is a result of apathy, inadequate education, or other reasons, is difficult to say, but regardless, it is a definite problem that plagues the proper functioning of democracy in this country. I had never viewed this matter, however, from the perspective of a politician that Volgy provides in this book.

    I definitely agree with Volgy when he states that greater empathy for politicians is necessary to improve the operation of democracy at national, state, and local levels in the United States. I found it particularly interesting when he discussed the fact that if people of other professions received the same treatment by the public as politicians, there would be a great outcry on their behalf. I think this is a very valid statement. Oftentimes, the American people jump to conclusions about the hidden motives of politicians and are quick to criticize their actions before awaiting an outcome. I am also guilty of this behavior, but after reading this book, I feel more aware of its negative consequences. Putting myself in the shoes of a politician, I wonder how I would react if I was constantly scrutinized and stereotyped.

    On a similar note, throughout the book, Volgy asserts that not all politicians are crooks and that their rewards are not as glamorous as is often portrayed to the public. Although this statement may be true, it is very difficult for the average American citizen to move beyond this typical image of the politician. Unfortunately, this is how they are portrayed in the media, whether true or not, and any attempt by the politician to reverse this image is often seen as phony or forced. This presents both the people and the politicians with a challenging dilemma, as the media is obviously the primary source of political information at all levels of government for the American public. Therefore, the media generally plays just as large of a role in government as the politicians themselves, often giving it the label of the fourth branch of government. In order to overcome this obstacle, Volgy stresses the importance of local government, since it is the closest to the every day lives of the citizens. If actually implemented, I believe Volgy's remedies in the last chapter for the problems that currently weaken our democracy would be very successful. The question, however, is whether enough citizens are willing to take time away from their busy lives to involve themselves in the political process and become more conscientious citizens. Unfortunately, I don't believe that there is enough obvious incentive for most people to take the initiative.

15. More Empathy for Politicians, Cry Me a River!

    David—9/15/2003 11:17 PM, 9/15/2003 11:17:54 PM

    More Empathy for Politicians, Cry me a River! Thomas Volgy's Politics in the Trenches is a colorful account of the life of the unsung, unappreciated American hero: the local politician. According to Volgy, the life of a politician lacks the superstar glory some associate with it, but also lacks the regularity that other, private sector jobs grant its employees. Nonetheless, Volgy attempts (largely unsuccessfully) to describe his job as one that deserves increased empathy from all true Americans. “Entrance into the political process is wide open to those who have the dedication and the energy.” (Volgy 17) While this widely optimistic assertion may be based in truth, I find it to be largely misleading. Volgy said himself that he was fortunate enough to have luck on his side when he ran for office, even if his luck was a product of his hard work. In local politics, Volgy is correct. There are not enough well-qualified candidates running for local offices (school board, city council) and anyone willing to ‘get in the game’ has a decent chance entering the political arena. No one wants to be an elected local official, as Volgy explains, because [the] perks that are typically associated with government jobs do not exist on a municipal level. Once beyond the municipal level, however, money is the biggest factor in politics. Even those filled with enthusiasm and vigor must pay homage to the deity of lucre. The gross amount of money poured into modern politics turn people off, and prevents them from having empathy towards their elected officials. When Volgy describes his family's initial time in America, he tells the reader of his parents' general ignorance towards the political process (which, he later points out, is the same ignorance shared by many Americans born and raised in this great country). When entering into the political spectrum, he made his mother nervous because she saw government as bad, and believed that good politicians would be killed. At face value, this comparison is a mere misunderstanding about the institutional differences between a Hungarian government and an American one. However, there is a great deal of truth associated with her fear. There are countless examples of governmental abuses and crimes, not to mention the uncanny number of crooks and thieves who hold public office. As for good politicians, if you can find any, they are often then victims of character assassinations by their deceitful colleagues. After reading Volgy, there is a sense that taking on a seasoned political veteran in the political arena can be more vicious than taking on a Roman gladiator in the first century AD. Volgy describes the difference between high and low self-esteem politicians, and shows how neither guarantees you political success. His diatribe against the media helps illustrate the growing rift between the media and the politicians. The more access the media has, the less the politicians want to associate with them. This rift hurts the American citizen more than anyone else. The citizen then becomes the casualty in the war between the biased media and the biased politician. The sides then debate each other and not the issue and thus, we have an uninformed public. And still, Volgy wonders why there is little empathy in America. Overall, I think Volgy may have accomplished his stated purpose: “to create a greater sense of understanding and empathy toward those who work in government” (Volgy 37). It's easy to sit in an arm chair and tell Senators Chaffee and/or Reed that they aren't working for the state of Rhode Island, but it's also impractical to believe they could be doing any better. There may never be the empathy that Volgy was looking for, but there probably couldn't be much more. Ask an average citizen about the impending agenda for the Congress and they will tell you they want jobs, money and security (not necessarily in that order), but ask an average citizen if their politician(s) are working for them, and you will always get a resounding NO.

16. So Politicians Are People Too, Eh?

    Deanna—9/15/2003 11:58 PM, 9/15/2003 11:58:24 PM

    At the start, I'd like to (somewhat reluctantly) say that if empathy was Volgy's mission, he succeeded with me, at least in some respects. I approached this book ready to discount whatever sob story he attempted to recount to drum up support. As I read more, however, I realized that this very preconception is what perpetuates the vicious cycle Volgy writes about in Chapter 2 (the section labeled “Searching for Empathy” ). Our preconceived notions of politicians as crooks and thieves are hindering the actions of politicians and frustrating their missions, to the point that such notions are becoming self-fulfilling propecies. Well-qualified, intelligent, caring people are no longer being attracted (or retained) in politics because of the negative connotation associated with the field. It's simply too much of a struggle, says Volgy, to continually defend oneself against attacks from an ignorant public or sensation-seeking media, while at the same time trying to work for the good of a population. Now, granted, these are the words of a politician, albeit one who rose to where he is through hard work and luck (the American Dream, thank you). So, what's the big deal? Many people in my community have worked hard and do work hard to maintain a living. Why should empathy be specially delegated to politicians? It wasn't until I read the eighth chapter (which, next to the first chapter, I honestly felt to be the most interesting) that I truly was able to empathize with Volgy's situation. I can even relate, albeit on a smaller scale. (Is that two albeits in one post? I must be in college.) I was on Student Council for all four years of high school, an officer for three years, including the office of president my senior year. I (along with the other stress-ridden over-achievers in this honors class) know what it's like to be pulled from seven different directions at once, to have one's day dictated by every sort of pressure, and to come away many times feeling frustrated and just wondering if any of what you just did matters. Granted, I ran Student Council in an all-girls Catholic high school—it wasn't a city, nor did it entail anything remotely close to what Volgy experiences. Still, on that point I could empathize with his situation. We've all wondered just what we've been missing, relying on newspapers and video clips for political information. I thought it was extremely interesting to learn about the various pressures put on politicians (who are normal people with families and motives and, in some cases, psycological concerns) that we often take for granted. Now, I can't say that my views on politicians have been totally reversed. Like I said, this book was written BY A POLITICIAN. However, I am glad for the opportunity to see the issue from the other point of view. Volgy and I both agree that that is vital when forming an opinion about anything.

17. If Only Everyone Could Be So Great as Politicians!

    Thomas—9/16/2003 12:09 AM, 9/16/2003 12:05:44 AM

    Our country is in desperate need for the message contained in Volgy's Politics in the Trenches. At the risk of repeating everyone else who has posted before me, I will still say that I agree with Volgy that politicians are deserving of more empathy from Americans. His book makes a clear case for this empathy without simply whining about the difficult lives of politicians (although he does do some explaining of how taxing the position can be). I found the most important message contained in this book to be Volgy's theory of a reciprocal effect that increased empathy for legislators in this country has. If Americans begin to empathize with politicians, they will receive the benefit of this action. Law-makers will be able to better serve their constituents in myriad [of] ways if they receive the support of these people whom they are attempting to serve. I completely agree with Volgy in this matter and I hope more people will adopt this philosophy in the United States. That being said, I do find some fault in Volgy's assessment of the noble character of politicians. His book deals almost exclusively with local politicians, and thus all of his claims about the altruistic motives of these community servants refers only to the local sector of the government. He seems to neglect the fact that most people have a far greater awareness of National politicians than local ones, and this is one of the main causes most Americans' view of politicians. Aside from one's own local representatives, the average person would be hard pressed to name other members of his city or state legislature. But ask the same fellow to name some extremely prominent U.S. senators, and the task would be accomplished with ease. In fact Volgy's only mention of national politicians involves negatives, such as good perks and failed campaign finance rerform. Therefore although I agree with Volgy in many respects, I feel he fails in assessing national politicians.

18. Politics, on the Rocks Please.

    Jess—9/16/2003 12:08 AM, 9/16/2003 12:08:38 AM

    I can't say that Volgy's book is my favorite piece of literature ever written on the political process… but I can't say I've read many others either. It seemed to me, however, that I was reading more a journal of one politician's gripes with the population's lack of empathy rather than an insightful look into the political “laboratory.” Am I just being apathetic? Possibly. But I have to say that the book on a whole felt more like one overly extended thought instead of the resource guide for political involvement that I was expecting. I want the answers and avenues of possibilities of which I have not already thought. I don't want him to tell me that I should get involved on the local level to become more knowledgeable of the state and federal politics with which I should be concerned. I know this already. I want him to provide me with the other alternative…the one that doesn't require all the other bull on the small scale…I want to know how to understand the big politics without having to take the baby steps to get there. The problem is, I'm trying to cross a river with only one stepping stone and I'm getting stuck in the middle, without a way to get all the way across, and then I just stop caring about spending the extra effort to get all the way across. And thus, I become the case-in-point for Volgy's hypothesis on political apathy. The chapter of the book I found most interesting was that on “The Perks of Office.” I have to admit that the amount politicians are paid has always interested [me]. (I'm probably a hard-line capitalist-republican in Democratic jeans.) The mere fact that Hotel desk clerks in Las Vegas are making more money than the mayors of some of the nation's largest cities is appalling! I can't help but actually feel sorry for these politicians who, as cliché as it sounds, are working much harder than the average person and getting little more than criticism in return. I also read the whole chapter on why politicians run for office, but still I feel as though the whole political scene must be quite a let down once these active and enthusiastic citizens are separated from the private sector and thrown in the midst of the political world and in front of all their citizen's scrutinizing stares. I realize now that the “perks,” at the local level at least, are not nearly compensation for the hardships of the political life. The other segment I found very interesting and, in this case, more pertinent to the presentation of “the political laboratory” was that on the campaign finance. I've always been curious about how campaign finance could be allowed to be so unequal in the candidate arena. In our world, is it even possible for the honest man or woman, with all the qualifications of a superior candidate, to make it past the first stages of congressional or House campaigning? Considering the amount of money involved, I would very pessimistically say, no. And this, it seems, is a MAJOR factor in the flow of information to the general public which, of course, determines their voting habits. It seems apparent to me that one of the first changes that should be made in order to assure a better-informed and more equally knowledgeable public would be to provide an equality-based campaign reform that sets and equal amount of spending for all candidates. How else will the good men and women be able to work their way up the political ladder to positions that they may very well deserve? (I feel these reforms should also include set codes of conduct for candidates—including the illegality of slander, etc.—but that is another matter entirely.) This idea of knowledge in the general population leads into my final thoughts on Volgy—those concerning his ideas of trust and empathy. It is fairly clear that Volgy makes a very tangible connection between knowledge, empathy, and trust. He takes many pains to show the positive effect of political education on the public. Political education, he explains, will lead to a more empathetic view of the political process, the political “laboratory,” and the “experimenters” in office. Empathy then leads to a greater sense of trust in those officials and, thus, a better working democracy. This ideal democracy is one in which citizen and politician are working towards common goals hand in hand, rather than in constant battles—embroiled in continual disagreement and disaccord. Finally, the citizen will become further learned in the matters of his or her government and the cyclical relationship will continue to grow and strengthen. This seems perfect. And I agree that working towards this type of relationship is something in which all Americans should involve themselves. My problem, however, is Volgy's own statement about the initial result of civic distrust and lack of empathy. He states “Once…distrust and lack of empathy dominate the civic culture, scandal and character assassination begin to replace the debate over public policies at all levels of government.” When there is a lack of trust or empathy the result is a further weakening of the soft foundation of trust and empathy that may still be there and, thus, the effect is a total destruction of the whole theory of the ideal cyclical relationship. So I must end my response here, not with an answer or personal opinion on this contradictory situation, but instead with no answer. I've read the book, I've done the necessary thinking and analyzing, I've pondered my own involvement and my own views of politics, and instead of finding the stepping stones I need to finish crossing the river towards a true understanding and [a] true love of politics, I find myself still in the middle of the river, not really knowing which shore is now safer…

Notes

Note: The question read: “Do you think the Discussion Forum assignment helped your learning in this course?”

Note: The question: “If you answered ‘Yes’ to [the question in Table 1], rank each of these four items in order of importance to you, with 4 being the most important to you and 1 the least important to you.” Percentages vary because of rounding.

Note: From Table 1, the number of negative respondents is 12. In this table, n = 14: two respondents who left the original assessment question blank chose to respond to the negative choices. Percentages vary because of rounding.

Note: Arithmetic Mean = 41; Median = 35. Percentages vary due to rounding.

It is both possible and desirable to have these discussions continue after class meetings as well, for most of the same reasons, but my theme in this paper is the preclass preparation dimension. Later sections of this paper discuss these options in more detail.

A student can earn a B for the overall assignment by simply accumulating a Pass for each scheduled Discussion Forum opportunity, but they cannot earn an A that way. For example, to earn an A might require an accumulation of, say, seventeen points—at one point per Pass posting—but there might only be fourteen or fifteen Discussion Forums. I discuss these and other details more in the following section.

Barber's notion might be translated into this paper thus: for more and better learning, we need better students, not better professors. Barber's thoughts on citizenship and leadership are seen throughout his works on “Strong Democracy.”

Mezeske reports that most students at a conference she attended acted as if “education had happened to them.” Emphasis in original. In this short essay, she also stresses that changing the rules of the game for students can produce angst, and that we must make “the process of change a continuous open dialogue.” Because of space considerations, I have not provided any detail in this paper about how one gets feedback, etc., but I agree, from experience, with her insights.

Austenfeld uses different terms to make a similar point: he sees our vocation involving three types of activities: teaching, which means imparting information, i.e., “telling and guiding;” training, which means enabling students to learn the skills of scholarship; and educating, which aims to produce “that exhilarating time when students…begin learning on their own, begin training themselves, become lifelong learners…” (2002, 25). All of my teaching activities fit somewhere in this empowerment continuum and are hopefully oriented ultimately towards Austenfeld's third goal. By the end of a course, if students can use the skills we have focused on to analyze the material we have discussed, I have succeeded.

The most common CMS applications are Blackboard and WebCT, both in fairly widespread use. At Providence College we use a CMS called ANGEL, which stands for A New Global Environment for Learning, and that is the application to which I refer in this paper.

Some instructors might want students not to see other postings before doing the reading. It is usually possible to tweak the settings in the Course Management Software to prevent students from reading other postings until they have posted their own.

I always add these archived boards to the course web page, using our ANGEL course management system. As the semester progresses, any student in the class can view and review all postings by all students, in a relatively straightforward way.

“Expressing themselves” includes an informal competition for creative titles on postings. John's (#7) title, “Mother, Should I Trust the Government?”, for example, is taken from the music of Pink Floyd.

Data were collected by means of an anonymous questionnaire at the very end of the semester; responses were held by a student until all grades were handed in. Findings are based on 185 student questionnaires, including roughly similar numbers from the classes of 2001 through 2005. The sample was 66% female. Courses ranged from introductory level (101) through second semester senior classes.

To that point, in a different course evaluation instrument, one student offered the following unsolicited statement: “I think the postings are a great idea in part because it keeps everyone on their toes and ensures that everyone comes to class prepared and having thought about the readings (if no one was ever prepared it would be a waste).”

Hake stresses that “engaged” means more than simply performing, and endorses activities that are “designed at least in part to promote conceptual understanding through interactive engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities which yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors.” (65)

In preparing this paper, I am in debt to the many students who have participated in my Discussion Forum experiment and who graciously filled out evaluation forms. I am also indebted to Julie Holstrom, class of 2003, and more recently and particularly to Kate Davey, class of 2004, undergraduates at Providence College who helped with processing and interpreting data. I presented earlier versions of this paper as a supplement to my presentation at the first American Political Science Association Teaching and Learning Conference (Washington, February, 2004) and at the Georgia Political Science Association Annual Meeting, (Savannah, November 11–12, 2004). I appreciate the feedback from both venues. The Journal of Political Science Education peer reviewers provided excellent suggestions for the revisions of this manuscript.