THE STUDENT-ENGAGEMENT MOVEMENT

Academia has always encouraged students to take responsibility for learning. Yet, engagement’s link to persistence and graduation highlights its current importance. “Nearly everyone agrees that persistence and educational attainment rates, as well as the quality of student learning, must improve if postsecondary education is to meet the needs of our nation and our world” (Kuh et al. Reference Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh and Whitt2005, 7). However, even when American institutions were elitist, with exclusive admission standards, only approximately 50% of students completed their undergraduate degree within four years. Now, higher-education institutions admit a more diverse array of students, some of whom (e.g., those of low socioeconomic and first-generation status) may lack the most important traits associated with academic success: preparation and motivation (Pascarella and Terenzini Reference Pascarella and Terenzini2005). Student success rates are expected to increase despite the fact that fewer come to college prepared.

In response, the student-engagement movement focuses on bolstering motivation. What students are willing to do while they are on campus predicts academic success regardless of preparation. The amount of time and effort expended on learning-related experiences is the most effective way to improve academic growth in college (Kuh et al. Reference Kuh, Schuh and Whitt1991, Reference Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh and Whitt2005; Pascarella and Terenzini Reference Pascarella and Terenzini2005). “Students are not passive recipients of institutional efforts to ‘educate’ or ‘change’ them but rather bear a major responsibility for any gains derived from their postsecondary experience” (Pascarella and Terenzini Reference Pascarella and Terenzini2005, 602). Yet, traditional pedagogy—which frames teaching as information transfer and learning as memorization—does little to help students recognize this responsibility (Harward and Shea Reference Harward, Shea, Millett McCartney, Bennion and Simpson2013). Rather, the transformation in student engagement occurs when professors—reinforced by supportive administrators and campus culture—expect students to shift from superficial to deep learning (Bain and Zimmerman Reference Bain and Zimmerman2009; Kuh Reference Kuh2008; Kuh et al. Reference Kuh, Schuh and Whitt1991). Notably, at-risk students—with poor preparation and low motivation—benefit the most from these high-impact practices (Kuh Reference Kuh2008).

Those who teach by modeling their own college-learning experiences and perfecting their lecture skills may wonder: What precisely does engaged learning look like? Classic recommendations (Chickering and Gamson Reference Chickering and Gamson1987) are now included in the National Survey of Student Engagement’s (NSSE) Clusters of Effective Practices. The NSSE begins by determining whether students undertake challenging intellectual and creative work, as well as whether this foundation is used to prepare for collaborative learning. Examples of challenging intellectual and creative work designed to cultivate substantive expertise and academic skills include the amount of time spent engaged in reading, writing, and critical thinking. Examples of collaborative learning with other students include classroom discussions and presentations, group work outside of the classroom, community projects, and tutoring others. Examples of collaborative learning with faculty members include informal discussions outside of the classroom and formal interaction on research projects or service committees. Finally, the NSSE recognizes the importance of “high-impact” experiences such as internships, community service, study abroad, capstones, and extracurricular activities. These experiences allow students to demonstrate mastery—and knowing that they will be expected to do so motivates them to engage in deep learning. Students also cultivate self-efficacy, which helps them to recognize that they can apply knowledge and skills effectively outside of the classroom (Kuh et al. Reference Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh and Whitt2005). This recognition bolsters students’ ego involvement, which also motivates deep learning (Petty and Cacioppo Reference Petty and Cacioppo1986).

Even more than in other disciplines, what political science students learn in college is intended to be applied by active citizens and civic–political leaders in the public sphere, both on campus and beyond. As the reforms associated with the student-engagement movement take root, our students, in particular, will be expected to apply their newly gained insights and abilities beyond the classroom to demonstrate deep learning and mastery. Our assessment activities must follow students into these public spaces.

THE CIVIC-ENGAGEMENT MOVEMENT

American institutions have always had a civic mission, not simply to cultivate citizenship but also to “foster enlightened civic and political leadership” (Hartley Reference Hartley, Saltmarsh and Hartley2011, 28). The most recent effort to revitalize this mission emerged in the 1980s, when some academics became concerned that their students no longer tempered their drive for personal accomplishment with public obligation (Bloustein Reference Bloustein, Barber and Battistoni1999). These reformers embraced John Dewey’s experiential approach and launched the civic-engagement movement, which initially focused on extending student learning into communities—a pedagogical approach labeled “service learning.”

The civic-engagement movement has been successful not only by establishing the infrastructure necessary to institutionalize service learning but also by bolstering young people’s concern for public issues and their volunteerism (Strachan Reference Strachan, Ishiyama, Miller and Simon2015). However, young citizens have continued to reject the most traditional means of civic and political participation as a way to achieve influence in the public sphere. This rejection was demonstrated by poor voter turnout at the polls, as well as by declining political interest—both dropped to historic lows throughout the 1990s and early 2000s (Zukin et al. Reference Zukin, Keeter, Andolina, Jenkins and Delli-Carpini2006). The APSA Task Force on Civic Education (1998, 636) determined that “levels of political knowledge, political engagement, and political enthusiasm are so low as to threaten the vitality and stability of democratic politics in the United States.” When these trends were reversed, especially during the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, many hoped that the era of low youth political engagement had ended. To the contrary, similar patterns between these two elections, as well as post–2012, suggest that American young people still lack the intrinsic civic duty that motivates consistent attention to politics and voter turnout (Campbell Reference Campbell2006; Harward and Shea Reference Harward, Shea, Millett McCartney, Bennion and Simpson2013, 22–24).

The response has been broader calls for higher-education institutions to cultivate healthy civic—and explicitly political—engagement among young citizens (Bok Reference Bok2006; Carnegie Corporation of New York 2003; Colby et al. Reference Colby, Ehrlich, Beaumont and Stephens2003; Colby et al. Reference Colby, Beaumont, Ehrlich and Corngold2007; Ehrlich Reference Ehrlich2000). Those who helped launch the civic-engagement movement are often the least satisfied with the status quo. In the 1990s, Boyte (Reference Boyte1991, 765) complained that college still “appears to leave students without concepts or language to explore what is political about their lives”—a problem that was unresolved more than a decade later, when half of graduating seniors reported that college had little or no effect on their likelihood of voting (Kuh and Umbach Reference Kuh and Umbach2004). Reformers most committed to political socialization are critical of the accomplishments of the civic-engagement movement, arguing for new approaches and terminology (i.e., shifting from “civic” or “community” to “democratic” engagement) (Saltmarsh and Hartley Reference Saltmarsh and Hartley2011).

Again, professors steeped in traditional pedagogy may wonder: What precisely should these new approaches look like? The answer is that pedagogy for democratic engagement will be identical to the high-impact practices that cultivate student engagement, deep learning, and mastery in political science. The Political Engagement Project (PEP), a cross-campus effort undertaken by scholars affiliated with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, offers one version of what this pedagogy might entail (Beaumont Reference Beaumont, Millett McCartney, Bennion and Simpson2013; Colby et al. Reference Colby, Beaumont, Ehrlich and Corngold2007).

The PEP measured which college experiences helped students gain political understanding and skills linked to citizenship, as well as whether those experiences affected anticipated political participation (Beaumont Reference Beaumont, Millett McCartney, Bennion and Simpson2013; Colby et al. Reference Colby, Beaumont, Ehrlich and Corngold2007). This approach to assessment reflects attention to the stages recommended to achieve student engagement in general. Professors first must provide students with prerequisite expertise and ability before moving on to deep learning that helps them gain the self-efficacy (recognizing that they can) and the civic identity (recognizing that they should) to apply their new-found knowledge and abilities beyond the classroom. The PEP found that these positive outcomes were most likely to occur when students participated within a politically active community, practiced political action skills, engaged in political discussion, and collaborated with other students in racially pluralist contexts (Beaumont Reference Beaumont, Millett McCartney, Bennion and Simpson2013). More specific examples of experiential learning that can be used to cultivate political engagement include well-designed discussion sessions, service-learning projects, internships, decision-making simulations, and extracurricular activities (McCartney, Bennion, and Simpson Reference McCartney, Bennion and Simpson2013). Note that these examples are all high-impact experiences that bolster student engagement generally and that they have the most significant impact on the most politically disengaged students (Beaumont Reference Beaumont, Millett McCartney, Bennion and Simpson2013; Kuh Reference Kuh2008).

Political science’s pedagogy and substantive expertise are becoming increasingly relevant to the outcomes prioritized by academia overall. Failure to participate in the civic–democratic engagement movement represents a lost opportunity to situate our discipline at the center of a liberal arts education. It also would mean that those who lack our discipline’s expertise will assume responsibility not only for defining but also for teaching and assessing engaged citizenship, democratic decision making, and effective political leadership. In short, political science’s teacher–scholars should be actively involved in developing, assessing, and promoting well-documented best practices for civic and democratic engagement. Doing so requires that we extend our assessment and teaching–learning scholarship beyond not only our own programs but also our own campuses.

New resources in the discipline are advancing this work. The National Survey of Student Leaders (NSSL) is an example of how political science insights can be used to assess political socialization in the campus version of civil society—that is, student life. The NSSL is the inaugural and ongoing project of the Consortium for Inter-Campus Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) Research (CISR), which was founded to facilitate member-initiated, multicampus research projects designed to identify and promote best practices for civic and democratic engagement.

THE NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT LEADERS

Political scientists have long known that adolescent membership in voluntary associations predicts long-term political participation—but only when clubs and organizations are structured in a way that builds civic–political skills, efficacy, and identities (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady Reference Verba, Schlozman and Brady1995). Furthermore, organizations that facilitate interaction with diverse others are better at cultivating the social trust and inclusive definitions of citizenship required to sustain democracy in a heterogeneous country (Strachan and Owens Reference Strachan and Owens2011). Groups that primarily facilitate interaction among homogeneous members may undermine the desired outcomes.

Interviews with undergraduate students reveal similar patterns on campus. Students confirm the intense socializing effects of extracurricular activities in which interaction with peers shapes norms, behaviors, and identities—and achieves long-term influence far beyond that of their professors (Kuh et al. Reference Kuh, Schuh and Whitt1991). Yet, campus peer groups are influential even when they undermine the goals of the student and civic–democratic engagement movements (Astin Reference Astin1977; Pascarella Reference Pascarella and Smart1985). Spikes in fraternity members’ racist and sexist attitudes over time serve as one well-researched example (Sidanius et al. Reference Sidanius, Levin, Van Laar and Sears2008; Strachan and Senter Reference Strachan, Senter, Millett McCartney, Bennion and Simpson2013). How our students engage in campus civil society affects the learning outcomes associated with our discipline.

However, social scientists who know the importance of associational life have done little to study the structure of campus civil society. The NSSL is the first attempt to rely on political science expertise to systematically assess the quality of learning experiences provided by student organizations. With campus-recruiting assistance provided by the CISR, the APSA, the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and the American Association of State College and University’s American Democracy Project, the NSSL was administered to student officials who represent every registered student organization on 36 participating campuses. Included were community colleges, regional public universities, small liberal arts colleges, and research-intensive universities located in every major region of the continental United States and one European country.

Student officials were asked to report their own demographic traits—as well as the demographic composition, mobilizing capacity, and purpose of their groups—to determine whether campus civil society provides adequate opportunities for all types of students. Additional descriptive information was requested to ascertain whether campus groups have adopted the organizational structures, cross-cutting interactions, activity levels, and decision-making procedures recommended by scholars of associational life. Other questions derived from established political science instruments assessed student officials’ perceptions of bridging–bonding social capital and of organizational pursuit of civic and political goals. A final series of questions measured their levels of social trust, political interest, anticipated political participation, and efficacy.

The NSSL serves numerous purposes, the first of which is to enhance the learning that takes place in student life. Participants received an in-depth campus report, which established a baseline assessment of each institution’s civic infrastructure and offered suggestions for improvement. When the NSSL is administered on a regular schedule, it will provide higher-education institutions with the means to regularly assess whether campus civil society promotes the priorities of recent reform. It situates political science as an important resource not only on individual campuses but also within academia. Finally, in-depth analysis of NSSL data will contribute new scholarly insights to associational life and its role in establishing and sustaining democracy.

THE CONSORTIUM FOR INTER-CAMPUS SOTL RESEARCH

The NSSL serves as an example of the type of research CISR was launched to facilitate: projects requiring collaborative, cross-campus data collection to assess the effectiveness of political science pedagogy and campus-wide civic engagement. The inspiration for CISR occurred when the coauthors of this article discussed their experiences serving as back-to-back program chairs for APSA’s Political Science Education Section, in which we agreed that political science SoTL research had plateaued. We shared our frustration that insights from important, timely SoTL projects that addressed questions central to our discipline’s scholarly traditions often were constrained—not by methodological flaws but rather by lack of resources. We agreed that systematic multicampus data collection was needed to determine whether the effectiveness of specific teaching practices and programming efforts could be generalized beyond a single campus setting. Yet, many of the teacher–scholars engaged in SoTL research simply lack the time and resources to coordinate these efforts—which not only prevents large-N surveys but also limits the selection of cases in qualitative work and subjects in experimental designs. Although SoTL research in political science regularly produces intriguing preliminary findings, the next step is to build on these findings by collaborating with those at other institutions.

CISR’s structure is intended to ease the burdens of multicampus research by building a network of academics interested in participating in collaborative research. When members join CISR, they receive updates about upcoming peer-reviewed, advisory-board–approved projects, with the option of facilitating data collection. Those who opt in receive a summary report of their own campus performance along with broader institutional trends for use in internal assessment. Faculty might use these data to demonstrate their department’s commitment to identifying best practices or to highlight the need for improvement. For example, the NSSL report enabled participants to determine whether percentages of female and minority student officers matched the demographic composition of their student body. If not, CISR members could initiate discussion of ways to improve recruitment of marginalized students.

When feasible, principle investigators also may share raw campus-level data for use in participants’ own scholarly work. In some cases, a principle investigator may seek coauthors and agree to share the full database. Finally, members can respond to calls for proposals and submit an original project for review by the advisory board, which will give extra consideration to members who have participated in previous projects.

The CISR provides an array of benefits to individual members and participants, including access to more students, classes, and campuses. This should enhance assessment projects undertaken by our discipline as well as provide improved SoTL findings worthy of publication. One of CISR’s goals is to make it easier for teacher–scholars at colleges with heavy teaching loads to participate in cutting-edge SoTL research. Professors who take seriously teaching, learning, and assessment and seek like-minded colleagues—whether they work at liberal arts colleges, regional comprehensive universities, community colleges, or research universities—are encouraged to join. Moreover, CISR benefits the discipline overall by helping political scientists provide the type of assessment data increasingly valued by academic institutions transformed by the student- and civic-engagement movements.

JOINING THE CONSORTIUM

Those interested in learning more about the CISR may visit the website at www.tinyURL.com/JoinSotl. Joining requires providing contact information as well as descriptive information about one’s institution, department, and interests. Taking this step ensures an invitation to participate in relevant CISR-vetted projects—with the freedom to determine which are appropriate based on personal interest, available time, and campus priorities. It also allows members to reply to an upcoming call for proposals. We hope that readers will join this new cooperative endeavor to conduct cutting-edge, cross-campus assessment of our efforts to develop the skills, knowledge, and dispositions necessary for effective citizenship in a democracy.