Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T04:48:26.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teaching About America's Fiscal Future in the University's Core Curriculum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2010

Steven Galatas  and
Cindy Pressley
Steven Galatas
Affiliation:
Stephen F. Austin State University
Cindy Pressley
Affiliation:
Stephen F. Austin State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Civic engagement is increasingly recognized as a significant function of public universities. The university provides a variety of opportunities for civic engagement, including co-curricular activities, service learning opportunities, and specific majors and minors. This article reviews the attempt to embed civic engagement and civic education about the national debt and budget deficit issues in a university core curriculum course at Stephen F. Austin State University. We focus on specific issues of curriculum instruction and assessment of student learning of knowledge regarding the debt and deficit issues.

Type
The Teacher Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 323 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beaumont, Elizabeth, Colby, Anne, Ehrlich, Thomas, and Torney-Purta, Judith. 2006. “Promoting Political Competence and Engagement in College Students: An Empirical Study.” Journal of Political Science Education 2: 249–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branson, Margaret Stimmann. 2005. “The Connection between Civic and Economic Education.” Teacher Librarian 32 (3): 26–28.Google Scholar
Deardorff, Michelle, and Folger, Paul J.. 2005. “Assessment that Matters: Integrating the ‘Chore’ of Department-Based Assessment with Real Improvements in Political Science Education.” Journal of Political Science Education 1: 277–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deloach, Stephen B., and Greenlaw, Stephen A.. 2005. “Do Electronic Discussions Create Critical Thinking Spillovers?” Contemporary Economic Policy 23 (1): 149–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubnick, Melvin J. 2003. “Nurturing Civic Lives: Developmental Perspectives on Civic Education—Introduction.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (2): 253–55.Google Scholar
Flanagan, Constance. 2003. “Developmental Roots of Political Engagement.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (2): 257–61.Google Scholar
Gagnier, Christina M. 2008. “Democracy 2.0: Millennial-Generated Change to American Governance.” National Civic Review 97 (3): 32–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galston, William A. 2004. “Civic Education and Political Participation.” PS: Political Science and Politics 37 (2): 263–66.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Stephen. 2008. “Service 2.0 and Cities.” National Civic Review 97 (3): 52–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huerta, Juan Carlos, and Jozwiak, Joseph. 2008. “Developing Civic Engagement in General Education Political Science.” Journal of Political Science Education 4 (1): 42–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, Susan, and Brisbin, Robert A. Jr. 2003. “Civic Education and Political Science: A Survey of Practices.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (4): 759–63.Google Scholar
Kedrowski, Karen M. 2003. “Civic Education by Mandate: A State-by-State Analysis.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (2): 225–27.Google Scholar
Malone, Christopher, and Julian, Gregory. 2005. “Democratic Action Research (DARE) and Large Scale Simulations: Teaching Political Literacy and Civic Engagement at Pace University's Presidential Convention 2004.” PS: Political Science and Politics 38 (4): 771–76.Google Scholar
Meisel, Wayne. 2007. “Connecting Cocurricular Service: A Movement toward Civic Engagement.” Liberal Education 93 (2): 52–57.Google Scholar
O'Connor, John S. 2006. “Civic Engagement in Higher Education.” Change 38 (5): 52–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omelicheva, Mariya Y., and Avdeyeva, Olga. 2008. “Teaching with Lecture or Debate? Testing the Effectiveness of Traditional Versus Active Learning Methods of Instruction.” PS: Political Science and Politics 41 (3): 603–7.Google Scholar
Public Agenda. 2008. “Students Face Up to the Nation's Finance.” http://www.FacingUp.org/students.Google Scholar
Snyder, R. Claire. 2001. “Should Political Science Have a Civic Mission? An Overview of the Historical Evidence.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34 (2): 301–5.Google Scholar
Staub, Shalom D., and Finley, Ashley P.. 2007. “Assessing the Impact of Engaged Learning Initiatives for First-Year Students.” Peer Review 9 (3): 18–21.Google Scholar
Stephen F. Austin State University. 2009. General Bulletin, 2009–2010. No. 330. Nacogdoches, Texas: Stephen F. Austin State University.Google Scholar
Texas Education Code. 2009. 51–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. 1999. “Core Curriculum: Assumptions and Defining Characteristics (Rev. 1999).” http://www.thecb.state.tx.us (accessed September 5, 2009).Google Scholar
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. 2009. “Mission Statement.” http://www.thecb.state.tx.us (accessed September 5, 2009).Google Scholar