15-4 Introduction

One of the most feared or dreaded (likely because the process is seemingly so onerous and disconnected from what we actually do) activities for academics is assessment. Indeed, at a recent Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) conference, a session concluded that the state of assessment was a “hot mess” (Lederman 2019). As the adage goes, we fear what we do not know. Similarly, we dread what we find to be unhelpful or useless. All too often, faculty gather to write institution, school, or program learning outcomes and the result is so watered down so as not to offend colleagues or vague so as not to directly or indirectly interfere with the livelihood of others. For most of us, we regularly engage in our own assessment projects through continual evolution of our courses. We constantly look to improve upon what works and replace what does not. The failures of assessment are not necessarily of our making, of course. Faculty typically are only part of a larger process driven by administrators and accreditors. It should not be this way and it does not have to be. The problem is that faculty have more control over our student learning objectives (course specific) than we do programmatic or institutional learning objectives. Most of us are engaging in repeated and regular assessment on a near daily basis (even without necessarily thinking of it in these terms). How, then do we improve the assessment process, increase faculty engagement, and ultimately make our programs better for student recruitment, retention, and graduation?

As I reread the articles for this manuscript, I began to think about assessment in new, and helpful ways. As faculty, we regularly hear of what employers and others want in graduates along with dozens of ways that we should be achieving this mission. Morin’s review of A Practical Education: Why Liberal Arts Majors Make Great Employees, reflects one aspect of this tradition. It is easy to see how some students find careers (engineering, for example) but for the liberal arts it is less so and this book makes an good case. As Morin concludes, it is a good start but the problem, for most of us, is that we cannot articulate it as well as we would like. Equally important, faculty are often unsure how effective our strategies for meeting these obligations are. Almost all of the articles in this issue, provide us with one of two things: program outcomes that the political science education literature has effectively demonstrated to be critical for our students and strategies that we can implement in our own classrooms to more effectively meet those outcomes. Safranova et al argue that assessment of program learning outcomes can improve student learning and metacognition. Moreover, they argue that we can leverage the assessment needs and data from departments for more than just departmental needs. Students gain a much greater understanding of how things fit together in their education when they know how and why the parts fit together. Kropf et al argue that faculty should be leveraging assessment to drive changes to courses to improve student learning outcomes. Together, these two articles provide a means that faculty and departments can use to connect the political science major and the courses students take to the skills that employers want (recognizing, of course, that skills development is only part of what we want to do). Mobrand takes a different approach and encourages us to assess models of student learning for universality. He asks us to consider if what works in one area will work in other areas. By encouraging us to critically consider how our global curriculums reflect Western traditions and may not reflect other traditions, we can better develop our students (and future faculty) to compete on this level.

Several of the articles address civic engagement and civic participation. The articles here in JPSE 15-4 very effectively complement the second APSA civic engagement book, Teaching Civic Engagement Across the Disciplines, reviewed by Sherri Wallace. In a democracy, the failure to be fully engaged as a civic community and polity is a threat that we cannot ignore. We learn from Matthews and Hullinger how introductory American government courses increase student self-efficacy in the political arena. In several states, such a course is required of students and it is important to know whether the courses are actually serving the purpose that the states desire. The answer is complicated but provides guidance for others to consider when thinking about such courses. Lee et al bring civic engagement out of the Western context and look at how community-based learning improves the civic participation levels of students. This finding dramatically expands our reach as professors of political science. Ultimately, we can hope that as civic participation increases (through our efforts and the efforts of our colleagues in other disciplines) the world will work better together to solve the complex problems we are facing. Hellwege builds on the fact that civic engagement is both a programmatic and student learning outcome and suggests that a student-centered approach to the issue is effective at increasing engagement. By encouraging students to take ownership of the projects that they, themselves, design, Hellwege suggests that the students do more and retain more than the more traditional top-down model.

Other articles address learning outcomes in other areas and bring assessment into the mix in unique ways. Becker provides a clear path for faculty to develop research labs (similar to those in the hard sciences). Undergraduate research is a high impact practice that increasingly is an important program or student learning outcome. It is an inspiring model that can easily be adapted to a variety of institutions. Dunn’s contribution on using Model NATO to encourage students adds to the growing literature on the effectiveness of large-scale simulations in creating learners who can think critically, speak well publicly, and react quickly to ever-changing situations. In short, to be the potential employees that employers want. Bowers provides an innovative way to increase student participation and in courses by using student generated photography in a flipped classroom. The lessons add to our understanding of how creativity can increase student learning. Saltzman’s discussion of how to use the Godfather trilogy to teach international relations is unique. What is seemingly a story of gangsters in America can effectively teach students important concepts. This is another effective tool to reach students. Finally, Mayhew’s review of the audience response tool Mentimeter will provide instructors with information to evaluate another tool to increase student engagement and learning.

As editors, we did not set out to craft an issue that so heavily focused on assessment and learning outcomes. As Bob Ross said, it was a happy accident. We hope you are as inspired by the articles in the issue as much as we are. We also hope that you find assessment and learning outcomes a little less dreaded.