Corrigendum

This article refers to:

Using Blackboard to Increase Student Learning and Assessment Outcomes in a Congressional Simulation

Article title: Using Blackboard to Increase Student Learning and Assessment Outcomes in a Congressional Simulation

Authors: A. Lanethea Mathews and Alexandra LaTronica-Herb

Journal: Journal of Political Science Education

Bibliometrics: Volume 9, Number 2, April–June 2013, pages 168–183

DOI: 10.1080/15512169.2013.770986

Publisher: Taylor & Francis

In “Using Blackboard to Increase Student Learning and Assessment Outcomes in a Congressional Simulation,” the table shown on page 176 should have been labeled Table 4. The correct Table 3 was missing from the manuscript. Also, the callout in the text for Table 4 should have been on page 179. Here is that updated sentence: “Five criteria (requiring both quantitative and qualitative responses) constituted the assessment exercise (see Table 4).” Both Table 3 and Table 4 are reproduced below.

Table 3. Student portfolio assessment measures (N = 18)

Students’ Evaluation of Simulation Overall
Required too much work/student commitment	11%
Set up of simulation needs to be changed (e.g., when during the semester, number of committees, etc.)	33%
Students needed more examples/instructions/explanations	56%
Simulation was enjoyable/interesting	61%
Could have used more time	72%
Self-Reported Learning Outcomes
Procedural Knowledge
Simulation showed a “realistic” lawmaking process	89%
Role and significance of committees	61%
Rules (filibuster, majority vs. minority rules)	45%
Conceptual Knowledge
Unorthodox Lawmaking	28%
Two Congresses	28%
Role of Partisanship	45%
Difficulty achieving compromise	45%
Value and necessity of compromise	50%
Interest Groups/Lobbying	50%
Conflict between individual and institutional goals	61%

Note. Three student papers were omitted from this analysis; one student did not give us permission to use his work and two students failed to submit final papers, reducing the overall number from 21 to 18.

Table 4. Online self and peer assessment evaluation criteria

1.	Before commenting on your portfolio and your peers’ portfolios, think for a minute about the individual's qualitative contributions to our simulation (as well as your own individual contributions). Provide comments about any significant independent contributions. Provide a QUALITATIVE response and also please rate your peer (and yourself) and assign yourself “points” on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest level of contribution and 1 being the least.
2.	Review the portfolio. How well is it organized? Does it adequately represent the quality and quantity of the student's participation in the simulation? Provide a QUALITATIVE response and also please rate your peer (and yourself) and assign yourself “points” on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest level of organization and 1 being the least.
3.	Leadership, engagement, involvement, initiative, and enthusiasm are critical to the success of our class simulation. How did the student demonstrate these? Provide qualitative feedback and then assign points from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest level of leadership, engagement, involvement, initiative, and enthusiasm, and 1 being the least.
4.	Were there any achievements or contributions that are “missing” in the student's portfolio? Explain. What else should I be aware of in grading the student's portfolio?
5.	Read the student’s final simulation paper. What “lessons” does this student share that seem particularly insightful or interesting to you? Provide qualitative feedback and a score from 1 to 5, with 5 being a first class “A” paper that communicates interesting lessons, and 1 being a poor, “C-” or below quality paper that fails to say much of anything interesting.
6.	Feel free to include any additional comments.