If exit polling was a widely known, but mostly misunderstood tool of
political science research, the presidential election of November 7, 2000
changed that. Exit polls have long been a controversial part of most
presidential elections, with the question of whether or not to publicize
poll results before the close of balloting heavily discussed among academics
and pundits alike. In fact, a ‘gentleman's agreement’ among the major
television networks not to call the winner in a state before balloting in
that state ended was violated on Election Day 2000.2
Exit Polls, Stage Left,” Christian Science Monitor,
Editorial, 2000, 93(11):10.
Since then, the major networks
have once again agreed never to violate such an agreement, and “NBC says it
will support a bill that would create a national poll-closing time”
(
Christian Science Monitor 2000). The exit polls conducted by
the Voter News Service (VNS) on election day added one more question to the
debate—should the results of exit polls be used to predict the winners of
elections? As television viewers watched, exit polls initially predicted the
victory of Al Gore in Florida; these predictions were then dismissed as
early returns indicated a probable George W. Bush victory. A renewed debate
on the utility of exit polls erupted in the popular press, and, no doubt, in
political science classrooms in the weeks after the elections. These events
have spurred a new interest in elections and, more specifically, in exit
polls. Given this heightened interest in elections and exit polls, some
political scientists might be tempted to have their students perform their
own exit polls in order to bring the excitement of an election to their
classes.
Should one plan an exit poll as part of a political science course? Aside
from the considerable amount of organizational planning required on the part
of the instructor to facilitate an exit poll, such projects usually require
an extra time commitment on top of the reading and study that students
expect to devote to their political science course. Many students might be
inclined to pass up such a course for this reason. With such organizational
and educational hurdles, we then ask, just what are the benefits of an exit
poll? From the pedagogical and experiential learning literature, advocates
suggest that students would not only learn the course material better, but
derive benefits extending past learning the course material. Critics of
class surveys suggest that although these sorts of projects may help
students understand the course material better, far reaching benefits are
less likely.
This study reports on students' perceptions of class exit polls administered
during the 2000 U.S. presidential election. Students at four different
universities (California State University, Northridge; Tulane University;
the University of Iowa, Iowa City and; the University of Wisconsin,
Parkside), and in different types of political science classes (Research
Methods, American Political Culture, Elections in America, Municipal
Governments, and Introduction to American Politics), administered the same
exit poll to registered voters on election day as part of their respective
political science courses. Although the same exit poll was administered,
using the same procedures, varying degrees of success were recorded. At
California State University, Northridge, a large public university in Los
Angeles, students closed the poll station early because a gang fight erupted
across the street; a second station closed early because of the perception
of imminent violence. All together, the student interviewers only collected
155 completed surveys. In contrast, at Tulane University, located in New
Orleans, student interviewers collected over 1000 completed surveys and
reported no problems. Students at the University of Iowa, Iowa City and the
University of Wisconsin, Parkside, both smaller locales, each collected over
900 completed surveys.
We were initially interested in understanding the difficulties students faced
by participating in these exit polls, from location issues to problems
administering the exit poll to voters. That is, were there differences in
the exit polling experience due to the geographical location of the
universities? This initial interest then broadened into understanding
whether or not the students perceived a benefit from participating in the
exit poll, despite polling difficulties. Thus, this article will address not
only the challenges associated with undertaking a class exit poll, but also
whether or not students perceive a benefit from having participated in one.
At the close of the fall 2000 semester, students in these four political
science courses were asked to complete a survey asking them about their
participation in the class exit poll. The purpose of this survey was to
assess not only what the students thought of the experience as it pertained
to their class, but whether or not it affected their perceptions of the
election, survey research, and political science in general. Given that the
students who administered the election day exit polls were from different
types of political science courses, in four different locations, it is also
interesting to determine whether the benefits derived from the experience
differed by type of course. With this in mind, it should become easier to
answer the question, ‘to survey or not to survey…’ when planning one's
course activities.
Organizational Considerations of Class Exit Polls
The planning of a class exit poll involves the same steps associated with
the planning of a class survey, such as a telephone survey.3
See Alan McBride, “Teaching Research
Methods Using Appropriate Technology,” PS: Political Science
and Politics 27(1994): 553–557.
A
questionnaire must be designed, a sample chosen, and data collected and
analyzed. Exit polling, however, involves a substantially more
complicated sampling process than does a telephone survey, and data
collectors (i.e. student interviewers) face a higher degree of
difficulty in collecting data than do telephone survey interviewers.
Nick Moon and Robin McGregor (1992) suggest
that of all the major issues involved in conducting an exit poll,
sampling decisions are most complex. Many considerations are involved in
drawing a sampling frame of a population for exit polling purposes.
These considerations include: the selection of polling stations, the
selection of respondents for the exit poll, and interviewer coverage of
these polling stations.4
See Nick Moon and
Robin McGregor, “Exit polls—Developing a Technique,” Journal
of the Market Research Society 34(1992):
257–269.
Most professional polling agencies prefer to
choose polling stations in precincts that have traditionally had high
voter turnout. This information is generally available through
governmental agencies, such as a registrar of voters. A drawback of this
approach may be the non-representativeness of the sampling frame,
especially with respect to ethnicity. To ensure a representative sample,
one might stratify a sample of election precincts. In states in which
the ethnicity of the voter is listed along with their party
identification, such as Louisiana, this information can also be easily
obtained through voter registration lists. Other states, such as
California, do not collect such information, and a stratified sample by
demographic variables is not possible. Through Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) technology, precinct information can be combined with
census tract data in order to map census demographic information by
precinct. The public availability of such information is somewhat
uneven; privately most election campaigns have some variant of this
information.
Once precincts have been chosen, and the actual polling stations located,
an important step before polling is to check the regulations regarding
exit polls. Most areas have a designated distance that must be
maintained by exit poll workers from the election booths. The official
in charge of the polling station should be informed that an exit poll
will be conducted; sometimes the officials are unaware of the rules
governing election polls. Student interviewers should be aware of the
legalities regarding exit polling. At one of the polling stations in Los
Angeles, for example, which was located in a hotel, the general manager
would not allow the students to conduct the exit poll on the hotel
premises. The manager relented only after the instructor interceded. A
final consideration when sampling is the determination of which voters
to approach. This is most often done through interval sampling, where
every kth voter is chosen. The interval value of k should be chosen
based upon the number of registered voters in the precinct, the history
of turnout in that particular precinct, and the turnout by time of day,
keeping in mind that turnout is highest in the early morning and late
afternoon hours. The sampling interval may have to be adjusted by
polling station according to these factors because a uniform interval
across all polling stations may result in a biased sample in favor of a
heavily turned out voting station.5
Douglas Rose at Tulane suggests that a similar skip pattern
at all of the polling sites will not result in a higher
percentage of voters from the higher turnout precincts. Email
correspondence, 3/5/02.
Refusals must also be figured
into calculations of sampling intervals. Not surprisingly refusals may
be increased by the presence of media exit polling outlets. When
confronted with both, voters in our exit poll were more likely to
complete the media exit poll as opposed to the class exit poll.
A class exit poll will require more supervision and paperwork than other
types of class projects. Students will usually have to fill out
liability forms required by the university if the activity (exit
polling) takes place off campus. Transportation may be a concern for
students who do not have transportation of their own. At Tulane, car
pools were set up so students had rides to the polling locations. Safety
is another concern, especially in urban areas. Ideally, student
interviewers work together in teams, especially after nightfall. Because
of most students' schedules, it is preferable to have the student
interviewers work in shifts. This requires extra supervision on the part
of the instructor or other supervisors, who will have to visit each
polling station at least once during the shift to make sure the student
interviewers are well supplied with questionnaires, pens/pencils, and
other necessities. Perhaps the most important supply of all is ready
access to a telephone. Supervisors are quicker to react to problems if
they hear about them in a timely fashion. In the Los Angeles example,
where students were told that they could not administer their exit poll
on the hotel premises where the voting booths were located, a call
enabled the supervisor (i.e., instructor) to come to the location and
discuss the matter with the hotel manager.
A successful exit poll depends a great deal on pre-poll work, including
the selection of balloting locations to be polled. On the day of the
election, a high level of supervision is also needed, which may be
difficult to achieve with a small number of supervisors, especially in a
large urban area. Organizational difficulties notwithstanding, the
administration of a class exit poll may be a good way to draw students
into the excitement of an election and add to the course material.
The Experiential Learning Movement and Political Science
Courses
Advocates of experiential learning cite John Dewey as an early proponent
of this method of education. Observing the educational patterns of the
early twentieth century, in which the method of learning was
hierarchical (the teacher teaches, the students learn), Dewey advocated
that by combining education with action (or practice and theory) a
democratizing element could be introduced into society. Dewey saw
education as a key component in the development of societal
dispositions. If education was presented in a hierarchical pattern, then
attitudes toward society could not help but to be hierarchical as well.
By separating theory from action, education tends to reinforce the
divisions that already exist in society. However, in combining the
theoretical with the real world, or in taking action, individuals are
forced to display an interest in the real world. “What Dewey wanted most
of all was to get us out of our boxes, ranked vertically or
horizontally, and into mutually creative exchanges among all our
capacities, between ourselves and others, ourselves and the world”
(Minnich 1999). Through the incorporation of theoretical knowledge
(i.e., classroom experience) with real world knowledge (i.e.,
experience) Dewey and others hoped that education could address the
problems of the day. Because students would learn firsthand about the
social issues of the day, it was hypothesized that they would then
display an interest in resolving these issues.
Less idealistic, but no less important, experiential learning is also
advocated as a method in which students can obtain a greater
understanding of course materials. “Adding a brief field project to
political science classes injects excitement and stimulates an interest
in course material” while exposing students to some of the issues
discussed in the classroom (Young 1996, 11).
Injecting an experiential experience into the regular course curricula
of assigned readings and lectures can help emphasize the material
learned through these courses and help the students make the connection
between theoretical knowledge and the real world. Young points to
students' visits and contacts with community and governmental agencies,
and attendance at local government meetings as thought-producing field
experiences.
Because methods courses are historically those parts of the political
science curricula that are perhaps most dreaded by students, it is even
more necessary to make such courses more interesting and relevant to
students.
While classroom based teaching can equip students
with research skills in data collection, sampling, data
analysis, presentation of research findings, and so on, it
cannot substitute for practical experience in two respects.
Firstly, it inevitably removes research methods from the social,
political, and economic context in which research is done…
Secondly, research entails more than the application of a given
set of techniques in a particular context [Burgess, 1981].
[Students]… need to gain an understanding of how the various
stages of research fit together in the research process (Winn 1995, 204).
That is, the often abstract material taught in research methods courses
can be made more relevant to students if taught in connection with real
world research experience. Students can better comprehend how a research
project is conducted from start to finish if they actually take part in
such a project. Even if students do not go on to become professional
researchers, which a majority do not, practical research experience
makes them better consumers of research findings.
Some of the ways to incorporate experiential learning experiences within
a political science course include having students attend meetings of
local government and observe the participants, or to initiate face to
face interviews with public officials. Commonly, research methods
courses with a quantitative focus require students to write a survey
instrument, draw a sample from a research population, administer the
survey, code the survey data, then analyze and interpret the results.
Allan McBride (1994) writes that “… the experience of designing
research, composing a questionnaire, collecting and eventually analyzing
data, cannot but help students to increase their understanding of the
social scientific process” (McBride 1994,
557). Gregory et al. write that after one such experience, “nearly all
the students felt that they learned valuable survey, interviewing, and
data analysis skills, and most felt that they ‘learned practical
skills’” (Gregory et al. 2001, 122).
Although most of the experiential learning studies are in a positive
direction, there have been critics, especially of the use of students in
conducting survey research. Lloyd P. Jones and
Stephan S. Meinhold (1999) questioned whether or not students
would “derive any secondary benefits from their participation [in a
public opinion poll] beyond the primary goals of learning how to conduct
survey research” (Jones and Meinhold 1999,
603). This is an especially pertinent consideration when such a class
project is required in a nonmethods course. Jones and Meinhold were
interested in determining whether or not participation in a telephone
poll would positively influence students' attitudes toward the local
community. Using a Soloman four-group design, with two of the groups
participating in a class poll, they reported no significant effect of
the poll experience on students' perceptions of the local community.
Recent reports, then, offer a mixed assessment of class research
projects, with some agreement that within the context of a methods
course, they may be beneficial, but within other courses, and past the
objectives of a methods course, less benefit is perceived. Should this
dissuade one from undertaking an exit poll as a class project?
The Question of ‘To Poll or Not to Poll?’
This work revisits the arguments of Jones and Meinhold in a different
context. Rather than assess what they referred to as ‘enhanced
citizenship,’ we are interested in whether or not the exit poll
experience was seen as beneficial to: 1) their class experience; 2)
survey research in general; 3) political science in general and; 4) the
election. This is more in line with the objectives of the experiential
education movement, in that it attempts to explicate the connection
between classroom learning of issues and these issues in the real world.
Thus, rather than focus on ‘enhanced citizenship’ the focus should be on
‘enhanced education.’
The Exit Poll
The exit poll itself was administered by classes at seven different
universities; however only four universities administered the class
surveys to students at the end of the term. The election day exit poll
was approximately 50 questions long in its original form, and asked
respondents standard questions about their vote in the presidential
election (who did the respondent vote for, why did they vote in this
fashion, when did they come to their decision), standard demographic
indicators, as well as a longer section asking respondents their opinion
about corruption in government. Each university had the option of adding
questions about local political issues to the above-stated questions.
Each faculty instructor agreed to incorporate the exit poll in their
course curricula by the start of the semester, and students at each of
the universities were informed of the exit poll at this time. Depending
on the particular course at each university, class participation in the
exit poll was either voluntary or mandatory, and thus was worth varying
degrees of credit toward the students' final course grade. Again,
depending on the particular course at each particular university,
students had differing degrees of involvement with the exit poll after
its administration. That is, in some of the courses students were
required to code, analyze, and discuss the information gathered by the
exit polls, while others were not.
California State University, Northridge, is a large public university of
about 29,000 students. The Northridge students who administered the exit
poll were enrolled in Political Science 372: Research Methods, a lecture
and laboratory course required of all political science majors. These
students designed some questions for the exit poll that were related to
a state ballot initiative and included these with the questions relating
to corruption. On the day of the exit poll, students were required to
work a two hour shift at the poll location for 15% of their final course
grade. Students were able to gain extra credit toward their laboratory
grade with each additional hour spent at the exit poll location.
Students were then required to perform data entry, analyze the data, and
incorporate the data into a final research paper. Of the 32 students who
took the class survey at the end of the semester, 58.1% were female and
41.9% were male. 54.8% of the students were juniors and 45.2% were
seniors. 96.8% of the students were political science majors. The
average age of these students was 27.6 years6
This average is affected by the demo-graphic information of
one of the students, a 79 year old!
.
Tulane University is a small private university of about 7,200 students.
Students at Tulane University who administered the exit poll were part
of either an American Political Culture or an Elections in America
course. Although the exit poll was not required for the course itself,
students in the course were required to enroll for a one-unit service
learning credit, in which their participation in the exit poll would
determine their final grade. For a passing grade (D) of this one-unit
service learning credit, students were required to work eight hours at
the exit poll locations. Students who aspired to a higher grade were
required to put in 25 hours of work, including the completion of a
literature review, pretesting of the survey instrument, and data entry.
Of the 40 students who took the class survey at the end of the semester,
67.5% were female and 32.5% were male; 45.0% were juniors, 37.5% were
seniors, and 17.5% were sophomores; 81.6% were political science majors;
and the average age of the students was 20.5 years.
The University of Iowa has approximately 27,900 students enrolled, making
it almost half of the population size of Iowa City (60,000). Students at
the University of Iowa administered the exit poll as part of their
Municipal Governments course. Students were required to participate in
the exit poll as part of the course, with 10% of their final course
grade dependent upon their participation. Of the 24 students who took
the class survey at the end of the semester, 58.3% were male and 41.7%
were female; 56.5% were juniors, and 43.5% were seniors (with one case
missing); 56.5% were political science majors; and the average age of
the students was 20.7 years.
Located in Kenosha, Wisconsin (population 85,000), students at the
University of Wisconsin-Parkside total about 4,700. Students here
administered the exit poll7
The exit poll
was actually administered in Kenosha County (population 120,000)
in order to have a more even distribution of Republicans and
Democrats in the sample.
as part of their Introduction
to American Government course, a course necessary to fulfill general
education requirements. Students were required to take part in the data
collection of exit polls in four hour shifts, with this exercise worth
25% of their final grade. Of the 32 students who took the class survey
at the end of the semester, 59.4% were female and 40.6% male; 43.8% were
freshman, 37.5% sophomores, 15.6% juniors and 3.1% seniors; 87.5% were
in majors other than political science, and the average age of the
students was 21.8 years.
In comparing the different political science courses represented in this
exit poll, we see that they are quite different. The students at
California State University, Northridge, were virtually all upperclass
students, with a near totality political science majors (96.8%). In
contrast, the students from the University of Wisconsin-Parkside were
mostly lowerdivision students (only 18.7% juniors and seniors), with a
majority of the students not political science majors (87.5%). At the
University of Iowa, 58.3% of the students taking the exit poll were
male, while at Tulane University, 67.5% were female (the highest
percentage of females overall). A true mix of political science courses
was represented. They should offer some interesting information as to
whether or not a class exit poll will be more successful in one type of
course versus another.
Survey of Students
What did the students think of the exit poll experience itself? The
survey asked students about the exit poll, its length and ease of
administration as well as transportation and safety issues, to ascertain
whether or not these differed by location. We report on these factors
first, then move on to the broader question of whether or not the
students perceived a benefit in having participated in a class exit
poll.
Table 1 shows the students' responses to
questions about how easy or difficult it was to administer an exit poll.
Three questions asked the students to rate their responses on a scale of
1 to 10, with ‘1’ indicating greatest difficulty and ‘10’ indicating
greatest ease, to the following aspects of exit poll administration: 1)
interviewing procedures; 2) transportation to the polling site, and, 3)
convincing individuals to complete the exit poll. A fourth question
asked students to evaluate the perceived level of safety in
administering the exit poll, with ‘1’ indicating least safe, and ‘10’
indicating most safe.
With respect to these four measures, each of the means was greater than
5, which would indicate that the students' impressions were more
positive than negative, although there are significant differences
within the groups on each measure. For interviewing procedures, a mean
score of 7.17 (sd 2.14), indicates that the students found the
interviewing procedures relatively easy. However, there is variance
between the groups, as the significant F ratio of 3.5 (p<.05)
illustrates. A modified Bonferroni test contrasts the students at Tulane
(mean of 8.00, sd 1.76) with those at California State University,
Northridge (mean 6.18, sd 2.36) and the University of Wisconsin-Parkside
(mean 6.50, sd 2.33). The students at Northridge and in Wisconsin seemed
to have the most difficulty with the interviewing procedures, although
the students in Wisconsin were still able to collect a reasonable
sample.
Transportation was not a problem (mean of 8.40, sd 2.04), although the F
ratio of 4.12 (p<.01) also denotes differences between the groups.
The modified Bonferroni test shows a significant difference between the
students at Tulane (mean 7.63, sd 2.54) and those at the University of
Iowa (mean 9.38, sd.92). It should be noted that this difference is the
narrowest between the groups, with the students at the University of
Iowa indicating an amazingly high, and uniform, level of ease in
transportation to the polling sites.
The most variance came in the measure which asked students to rate how
difficult or easy it was to convince individuals to complete the exit
poll. This mean of 5.76 (sd 2.29) was the lowest of the measures, and
the F ratio of 6.12 (p<.001) was most significant indicating that
there was variance in perceived levels of difficulty. The students at
the University of Wisconsin-Parkside seemed to have the most difficulty
in convincing individuals to complete the exit poll (mean 4.84, sd
2.33), followed by the students in California (mean 5.25, sd 2.50).
These means were significantly different from the responses of the
University of Iowa students (mean 7.17, sd 1.63). Interestingly, despite
these perceived differences, the students at both Iowa and Wisconsin had
high response rates, while the students at Northridge did not.
Most of the students perceived a high level of physical safety (mean
8.44, sd 1.96), although the F ratio (5.44, p<.01) once again
indicates significant difference between the groups. Not surprisingly, a
lower level of safety was reported by the Northridge students (mean
7.53, sd 2.53) some of whom had to close their polling station due to
gang violence. This is in significant contrast to the students at the
University of Iowa (mean 9.50, sd.88) whose responses indicated a very
high level of perceived safety. Nevertheless, the overall scores suggest
that, all things considered, the students felt pretty safe in their exit
polling experience.
The ratings given by the students on these measures of the exit polling
experience indicate that the students felt pretty safe in administering
the exit poll and were able to get transportation to the polling sites
easily. The most variation occurred with respect to the difficulty in
administering the exit poll, with significant differences experienced by
the students from the University of Wisconsin and California State
University, Northridge. Again, the interesting result here is that while
the students at Northridge and Wisconsin reported similar levels of
difficulty, the Wisconsin students had a higher response rate. We might
then ask if perceived benefits of the experience varied by reported
levels of difficulty.
Overall, most of the students did report a sense of benefit from the exit
poll experience, with 68.8% (88) reporting an overall sense of benefit,
and 30.2% (24) reporting no sense of benefit (see Table 2). When asked on a scale of 1–10, with ‘1’ indicating
least benefit and ‘10’ indicating the most benefit, how beneficial the
exit poll was in understanding the course objectives, the average score
was 6.2, with a median of 7, indicating that for at least half of the
students, the exit poll was a beneficial tool in understanding the
course objectives. When asked whether or not their participation in the
exit poll furthered their understanding of survey research, 81.1% (103)
of the students indicated that it did, and 18.9% (24) indicated that it
did not. With respect to the exit poll furthering their interest in
political science, only 55.9% (71) of the students indicated that their
participation in the exit poll furthered their interest in political
science, while 44.1% (56) indicated that it did not. Finally, when asked
whether or not their participation in the exit poll furthered their
interest in the election, 70.1% (89) of the students indicated that
their participation in the exit poll did further their interest in the
election, while 29.9% (38) indicated that their participation did not
further their interest in the election.
Thus, a majority of the students from the four universities did report a
sense of overall benefit from participating in the class exit poll
(68.8%), with their participation furthering their understanding of
survey research (81.1%) and their interest in the election (70.1%).
However, only a slim majority reported that their participation in the
class exit poll furthered their interest in political science. Because
these students were all enrolled in a political science course, it might
seem counterintuitive that this should be the case. However, because
some of the students were completing general education requirements, and
not necessarily political science majors, we might be interested in
comparing the responses of political science majors to those of
nonmajors to see if their perceptions differed. This comparison is made
in Table 3, and shows that of the five
questions on the benefits of the exit poll experience, only on the
political science question was there a statistically significant
difference. That is, in comparison to the political science majors
(63.6%, n=49), and the other social science majors (100%, n=5), only
36.6% (n=15) of the non-majors indicated that participation in the exit
poll furthered their interest in political science. Although the exit
poll experience seemed to be of benefit for the students in terms of
their understanding of the class, their understanding of survey
research, and their interest in the election, it did not necessarily
spur their interest in political science. We suggest that this may have
had something to do with the course in which the exit poll was
undertaken.
Table 4 compares students' perceptions of exit
poll benefits across the universities. There was no statistically
significant difference between the different political science courses,
with respect to whether or not the students felt an overall sense of
benefit from participating in the exit poll (Chi-Square=2.19 (p>.05);
lambda=.000). We also see no statistically significant differences
between the courses with respect to whether or not the students felt the
exit poll helped them better understand the course objectives (F score
of.42, p<.05; eta=.10). Students in the different courses were
similar in their assessment of whether or not their participation in the
exit poll increased their understanding of survey research
(lambda=.000), as well whether or not their participation in the exit
poll furthered their interest in the presidential election (lambda=.000;
Chi-square=11.44 (p<.01).
There were some significant differences, however, between the
universities with respect to the question of whether or not
participation in the exit poll increased students' interest in political
science. Overall, only 54.3% (70) of the total sample indicated that
their participation in the exit poll furthered their interest in
political science. Looking at the individual courses, we see a variety
of differences. Only 25% (8) of the students at the University of
Wisconsin-Parkside (Introduction to American Government) indicated that
their participation furthered their interest in political science,
compared to 79.2% (19) of those students at the University of Iowa
(Municipal Governments). At California State University Northridge
(Research Methods), and Tulane University (American Political
Culture/Elections in America), the percentages were 62.5% (20), and
60.5% (23), respectively. A lambda value of.29, and chi-square value of
18.52 (p<.001), confirms the significant differences between the
courses. This difference is most likely attributable to the high
percentage on nonmajors (87.5%) in the Introduction to American
Government course at the University of Wisconsin.
To Survey or not to Survey…
The impetus for this study came about because of the varying degrees of
success that the students of these courses had in administering their
class exit poll. Students at California State University, Northridge,
had poor results and low completion rates. Students at Northridge and
Wisconsin reported more difficulty with the interviewing procedures, and
in convincing individuals to complete the exit polls than at the other
locations. Additionally, students at Northridge felt less safe than
students at the other universities in administering the exit polls. In
contrast, students at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, and Tulane
University in New Orleans were quite successful in achieving a high
number of completed exit polls. Notably, the students in Iowa had the
highest level of perceived safety, and found the least difficulty in
interviewing procedures and convincing people to complete the exit
polls. Although it is not the purpose of this work to explain why the
exit poll was more successful in some places than in others, and whether
or not geographic area had anything to do with level of success, it is
interesting to see that students perceived a benefit from the
experience, even if the exit poll was not objectively successful (i.e.
high completion rates).
Ideally, a study of the benefits of a class exit poll with respect to the
educational experience of the student would have employed a pre/post
test design. Students' interest in political science and in the
presidential election would have been assessed before and after the exit
poll experience to evaluate any changes in interest. This was not done
here. Nevertheless, the results of our survey indicate that benefits of
this project in excess of increased course understanding, were felt by a
majority of the students. A majority of the students not only indicated
that they understood the course material better, but also understood
survey research better, had more of an interest in political science,
and had more of an interest in the presidential election. Although we
cannot track levels of change in interest in survey research, political
science, or the election, due to the students' exit poll experience, we
can answer the question of ‘to poll or not to poll' in the affirmative,
although with some qualifications.
The most interesting difference between the universities, and particular
courses, is seen in a comparison between California State University,
Northridge (Research Methods) and the University of Wisconsin-Parkside
(Introduction to American Government). At both universities, the
students reported similar levels of difficulty in convincing individuals
to complete the exit poll, and with interviewing procedures. The
students also felt less safe in Northridge. However, the perceived
benefit of the exit poll was felt by more students at Northridge
compared to the students in Wisconsin, even given these problems. This
is especially the case with respect to the ‘broader benefit’ questions;
that is, did the participation in the exit poll further one's interest
in political science and in the election? We suspect these differences
have much to do with the courses, and the composition of the students in
these courses. Whereas the research methods course was over 90%
political science majors, 87.5% of the students in Introduction to
American Politics course were nonmajors. Moreover, students in the
research methods course were involved in more than administering
interviews as they analyzed and integrated the collected data into their
final papers. We suggest here that while students in all types of
political science courses will receive some benefit from having
participated in such a project, students in the major will report the
most far reaching benefits, especially if it is tied in to other aspects
of the course, such as a final paper.
I suggest that such a class exit poll project is perhaps more appropriate
for upper division students in the major. These students will likely
have enough background information to understand election-day exit polls
(perhaps the events of November 2000 have been discussed in class), and
see the experience as part of the election-day landscape. By integrating
the poll into other aspects of the class, such as a final paper,
students can be gain more from the experience. At the least, the
experience creates a shared experience that many students will remember
past the semester's end. From my own experience, my former research
methods students at Northridge still talk about what a great experience
the exit poll was, even though the data collection was unsuccessful.
Their enthusiasm has carried over into other courses, and has bene-fited
not only them, but others who now teach these enthusiastic students.
%20-%20https://sketch.com%20--%3e%3ctitle%3e3ECBBF50-FD08-412A-943D-2CFC5E025A16%3c/title%3e%3cdesc%3eCreated%20with%20sketchtool.%3c/desc%3e%3cg%20id='Stylesheet'%20stroke='none'%20stroke-width='1'%20fill='none'%20fill-rule='evenodd'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(-926.000000,%20-668.000000)'%20id='BUTTONS'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(100.000000,%20597.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='BTN-/-RIGHTS'%20transform='translate(816.000000,%2065.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='ICON-/-Rights'%20transform='translate(10.000000,%206.000000)'%3e%3cpath%20d='M13.5752841,0%20L1.34943182,0%20C0.59375,0%200,0.586666667%200,1.33333333%20L0,22.6666667%20C0,23.4133333%200.620738636,24%201.34943182,24%20L17.6505682,24%20C18.40625,24%2019,23.3866667%2019,22.6666667%20L19,5.36%20L13.5752841,0%20Z%20M13.5752841,1.89333333%20L17.0838068,5.36%20L13.5752841,5.36%20L13.5752841,1.89333333%20Z%20M1.34943182,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,5.36%20C12.1988636,6.10666667%2012.7926136,6.69333333%2013.5482955,6.69333333%20L17.6235795,6.69333333%20L17.6505682,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,22.6666667%20Z'%20id='Shape'%20fill='%23595959'%20fill-rule='nonzero'%3e%3c/path%3e%3ccircle%20id='Oval'%20stroke='%23595959'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20fill='%23595959'%20cx='9.5'%20cy='13.5355339'%20r='5.5'%3e%3c/circle%3e%3cpolyline%20id='Path-2'%20stroke='%23FFFFFF'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20transform='translate(9.500000,%2013.035534)%20rotate(45.000000)%20translate(-9.500000,%20-13.035534)%20'%20points='8%2016.0355339%2011%2016.0355339%2011%2010.0355339'%3e%3c/polyline%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
