Goal Orientation in Political Science Research Instruction

Abstract

In recent years, scholar-educators have examined a variety of new approaches for teaching research in political science. Many of these inquiries begin with the observation that research activities cause some students to experience trepidation and aversion. The result is often poor performance in courses which assign research. In this project, I review and assess an approach to student research which focuses upon goal-orientation as a determinant of engagement. In doing so, I introduce three strategies for reconsidering goal orientation in the political science classroom. These include client consulting, low-cost survey deployment, and exit polling. These project-based courses are designed to reorient student attitudes toward the research process thanks to the identification of an external audience. Based on a pilot study of a goal-oriented learning experience, results provide suggestive evidence for the benefits of this approach in the undergraduate research setting.

Keywords:

• Undergraduate research
• research-based learning
• active learning
• scholarship of engagement

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge Carolyn Forestiere, Joel R. Campbell, Donald M. Gooch and the participants at the 2018 APSA panel on “Teaching Research Methods and Promoting Research”, Brian D. Roberts and the participants at the 2019 SPSA panel on “Experiential Teaching and Learning in Political Science”, the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of the present manuscript, the participants of the UMBC Faculty Development Center Workshop on SoTL, and the administrators of the UMBC Hrabowski Fund at the Faculty Development Center, including Linda Hodges, Kerrie Kephart, Jennifer Harrison, and Sarah Swatski.

Notes

1 As students possess culturally-inscribed perceptions of the “stereotypical researcher,” those who reflect on differences between their own characteristics and this model become increasingly concerned about successfully completing the research task—potentially to the detriment of their performance.

2 Note that by goal-orientation I refer to the pursuit of intrinsic goals such as autonomy, competence, and relatedness (e.g., Vansteenkiste et al. 2008). These intrinsic goals can be contrasted with extrinsic goal orientations, which are more closely associated with the short-lived “instrumental” goals I identify below.

3 This nomenclature corresponds to the “extrinsic” goals identified in some scholarship on goal orientation (e.g., Ryan and Deci 2000).

4 Some readers might be inclined to wonder whether students’ preparations, rather than their motivations, are the principal cause of poor performance in methods courses. It is certainly possible that some students fail to grasp key concepts in research due to their weak quantitative and critical reasoning skills. However, the present study examines goal orientation because unlike students’ high school or community college preparation, this is a variable over which instructors can assert control.

5 It is similarly possible for instructors to identify a variety of audiences stemming from a single data generating exercise. For example, one might imagine a variety of audiences stemming from the collection of exit poll data. Local journalists, incumbent politicians, campus stakeholders, activist groups, and nonprofits might all benefit from tailored analyses of exit polls.

6 In keeping with the points introduced in an earlier footnote, it is also possible to exchange the positions of steps 1–2 and 3. Sometimes, instructor might first encounter a unique opportunity for data generation that might be of interest to a variety of audiences. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this point.

7 IRB exemption for the present SoTL study was also applied for and approved under separate cover (redacted for review).

8 The pre-semester survey was administered in Week 2 to account for the drop-add period.

9 The mean pre-test score was 2.43 out of five.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ian G. Anson

Ian Anson is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at UMBC, where he teaches courses on American Politics, Media & Politics, Voting, Public Opinion, and Research Methods, among other topics. Prof. Anson’s research interests encompass a diverse array of topics, from the scholarship of teaching and learning to subjects in public opinion and political psychology including partisan motivated reasoning, misinformation, political knowledge, and responses to elite cues. Prof. Anson received a Ph.D. in political science and an M.S. in applied statistics from Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.