Reforming the Political Science Major: How Much, What Kind, and What For?

• In Event: Reassessing the Political Science Major

Abstract

For most political science programs, the undergraduate major consists of a sequence of courses, organized from introductory to advanced levels, that expose students to subfields of the discipline through distribution requirements (Ishiyama, Breuning and Lopez 2003). While this structure is flexible administratively and serviceable in promoting delivery of content and development of skills, it tends not to be distinctive to prospective students. Moreover, other curricular models show greater promise of facilitating deeper learning (McClellan in Ishiyama, Miller and Simon 2015).

Recent work in curriculum reform emphasizes student engagement. Extensive research demonstrates the profound learning effects of civic and political involvement (Matto, McCartney, Bennion and Simpson 2017). This research is poised to take advantage of opportunities in the higher education landscape, including increased diversity in the student population and greater involvement through sociopolitical movements such as March for Our Lives.

Going beyond community-based learning, the Association of American Colleges and Universities has promoted “high-impact practices” (HIPs), which include first-year seminars, internships, capstone experiences, and supervised research, as impactful educational activities (Kuh 2008). That is good news for political science majors, who are among the most likely to participate in several upper-year HIPs.

In addition, outcomes assessment efforts over the last two decades have made political science programs more intentional in stating what students should know and be able to do, how student performance is measured, and how well programs are promoting desired learning (Deardorff, Hamann and Ishiyama 2009; Deardorff 2016). Through information gathered from multiple assessment instruments, many departments are changing their major requirements (Raile, et al 2017; Szarejko and Carnes 2018).

However, curricular changes take place slowly or not at all. An APSA-sponsored commission in the early 1990s prescribed that the undergraduate major include a common introductory course, instruction in research methods, and a capstone course (Wahlke 1991). A 2005 study of political science programs in the Midwest showed that only 18% had adopted the Wahlke framework (Ishiyama 2005a), despite studies showing its effectiveness (Ishiyama 2005b).

Nearly three decades later, an APSA-funded conference on “Rethinking the Undergraduate Political Science Major” will be held in June. Responding to concerns about declining political science enrollments nationally and, at the same time, reflecting the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) in the discipline, this event will examine alternative models for curriculum change.

Without a proper understanding of the institutional and program barriers to curriculum reform, advocates of engaging alternatives to the prevailing distribution model are likely to be frustrated. The proposed study aims to describe the state of undergraduate curriculum reform in political science and the conditions under which curriculum change is likely to occur.

Framed by the following questions, this study will survey political science department chairs over the spring and early summer of 2019: (1) What are the opportunities and obstacles to curricular change in political science? (2) How much and what kind of change is taking place? (3) To what extent are findings from the scholarship of teaching and learning influencing changes in the undergraduate political science major?

A stratified sample of chairs will report on whether departments have changed the requirements of the undergraduate political science major within the last ten years. The timeframe takes into account the effects of the Great Recession, trends in higher education affecting liberal arts programs, and SoTL scholarship in such areas as civic and political engagement.

As this analysis is exploratory, there are no definite expectations as to how much or what kind of curricular reform is happening. Our best guess is that most programs have made minor changes to the major in the last decade, such as altering sub-field requirements within the traditional distribution model. Larger changes might include addition of HIP requirements such as internships or community-based learning in politics, or formalized attention toward increasing professional development and career outcomes.

We are also agnostic on what the primary drivers of curricular change may be. We posit three sets of independent variables that may affect changes in the political science major: (1) institution-level factors, including Carnegie classification and size; (2) department-level characteristics such as number of full-time faculty or changes in the faculty roster; and (3) motivations for change, including the need to attract students, faculty interest in SoTL, or addressing specific learning outcomes. The latter set of factors should provide evidence of the extent to which SoTL findings are affecting curriculum reform in the discipline.

Authors

• Fletcher McClellan, Elizabethtown College

• Kyle Casimir Kopko, Elizabethtown College

• Kayla Gruber, Elizabethtown College

• Amanda M Hafler, Elizabethtown College