BACKGROUND

The state of Texas requires fourth graders to meet a social studies standard as mandated by section 113.6 of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards. Bullet 18, “Citizenship,” of this section states that the student must understand the importance of voluntary individual participation in the democratic process. Among other items, the student is expected to (a) explain how individuals can participate voluntarily in civic affairs at state and local levels, and (b) explain the role of the individual in state and local elections. Traditionally, these standards are met through reading (e.g., in a textbook), lectures, class discussions, and homework. The class party exercise, as described in the following sections, is an experiential and novel way to address some of these standards. The explicit goals of the class party are to investigate: (1) whether experiential participation teaches students lessons about the individual costs of voting and the effects of such voting (and nonvoting) on the composition of the public good (a lesson in collective action); and (2) whether a debriefing, held after the class party, could teach additional lessons about voting and a citizen's relationship to elected public officials.

THE PROCESS: THE CLASS PARTY

The class party experience extended over one school week (Monday through Friday), with a debriefing on the following Monday (see figure 1).

Figure 1 The Class Party Week

Notes. ^aClass D took the pretest one week prior to the other classes and the posttest at this time. Class D served as the control class for the party. ^bClasses C and D took the posttest before the debriefing. Classes A and B took the posttest after the debriefing.

On the first Monday, an assessment with a title unconnected to the class party (“Government Quiz”) was given to the students in the morning. Later in the day, each teacher told his or her students that on Friday of that week, a class party would be held to celebrate all of the hard work that the kids had completed during the spring term. Furthermore, the teacher told the children that the class party would have a theme, music, and food chosen by the students themselves and would occur during a time of day normally accorded to academic subjects. In essence, the children were offered a public good in terms of a fun, in-class party.

To choose the theme, music, and food of the class party, the teacher suggested a student vote through an unspecified process (most participating students adopted an open “show of hands” vote). The caveats were that the voting was voluntary (students could participate if they chose) and would occur during the students' 30-minute recess period. On Tuesday, at the onset of the school day and right before recess, the classroom teacher announced that any student who wished to vote for the theme could go to their classroom during recess (escorted by a teacher) and participate in the voting. On Wednesday, the same process was applied to the vote on the music, and on Thursday, the same process was applied to the vote on the food. A teacher was present (although not necessarily the teacher of the student) to record the vote and the outcome. What this voluntary voting procedure during recess accomplished for each student was to create a private cost to political participation.

On Thursday evening, the teacher worked with several volunteer parents (sworn to secrecy) to organize the theme, music, and food for the party, based on the voting outcomes. One class created a movie/Oscars theme with rock music and pizza, popcorn, pretzels, and fruit. The second class created a Hawaiian beach theme with Hawaiian music and pizza. The third class created a beach-themed party with Jersey Boys music and barbeque. The fourth class created a Club Penguin-themed party with rock music and pizza. Each class had its party on Friday afternoon.

The following Monday, we conducted a 30-minute debriefing in each classroom to talk about students' experiences with the party and relate it to themes about political participation and public policy. The debriefing would be classified as “development/exploration,” in which students were able to learn more about the perceptions of other students to gain a more complete picture of the simulation exercise beyond their personal experience (Peters and Vissers Reference Peters and Vissers2004, 77).

FORMAL ASSESSMENT: PRE- AND POSTTEST ABOUT GOVERNMENT

We created an instrument called “Government Quiz” as a pre- and postexercise assessment of the class party. The quiz included 18 items: 10 general questions about government; 2 questions about voting related to the class party experience with a follow-up question about why students answered one of these they way that they did; and 5 questions about voting, political participation, and elected officials related to the debriefing. The appendix summarizes the questions.

Four classes participated, classified as A, B, C, and D. For Classes A, B, and C, we administered two quizzes. The first quiz was held on the Monday of the class party week before the teacher announced anything about the class party. The second quiz was given on the Monday morning following the class party. For Class D, our control, we administered three quizzes. The first quiz was given on the Monday one week before the administration of the first quizzes for Classes A, B, and C and before any announcement of a class party. The second quiz was given on the Monday of the class party week but still before anything was announced about the party. The third quiz was given on the Monday morning following the class party. We gave Classes A and B the second quiz after the debriefing. We gave Class C the second quiz before the debriefing and gave Class D the third quiz before the debriefing. Therefore, the results of Classes A, B, and C between the first and second quizzes contain the “party effect,” while the results of Class D between the first and second quiz contain the “no party effect.” Classes A and B between the first and second quizzes additionally show the “debrief effect.” Class C between the first and second quiz and Class D between the second and third quiz show the “no debrief effect.” Figure 2 shows the placement of the classes into each condition. During the week, none of the teachers gave assignments or had in-class discussions related to items on the government quiz.

Figure 2 Research Design

SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS DURING THE DEBRIEFING AND BEYOND

The debriefing aimed to create a purposeful discussion of the class party's relationship to voting and the composition of public goods, as well as the relationship between citizens and elected public officials (Lederman Reference Lederman1992). We tried to find fissures between what the party actually was and what the students had desired. In some of the classes, there was not much controversy: the party fairly accurately represented the desires of the students. However, in other classes, considerable disconnects emerged between the theme of the class party and what students had desired. For example, one of the classes chose a beach theme. During the debriefing, we entertained suggestions for alternative themes. Several themes were suggested and a video games theme was chosen by a show of hands. We asked some of the most vocal supporters of the video games idea if they had suggested and voted for this theme during the previous week. A bit shamefacedly, most said that they had not participated in the voting because they were enjoying their recess during the voting period. During the debriefing, students discovered two important lessons about voting: (1) the results of a vote do not necessarily reflect the preferences of the majority, and (2) one's own free-riding behavior can contribute directly to this outcome.

The students' general response was one of retrospection: those who participated in all three voting events seemed either thoroughly or somewhat pleased with the outcome of their voting activity. The students who seemed most satisfied with their efforts were those who not only participated in all three voting opportunities, but who also, after engaging in the vote, saw their preferences realized in the form of party music, food, and theme. Some students who participated fully in all voting rounds, however, seemed only somewhat satisfied with the effect of their participation on the composition of the class party. The disparity in satisfaction level appeared to lie in the fact that while some student voters got exactly what they voted for—theme, music, food—others did not because of the majority rules structure of the individual voting rounds.

Further discussions occurred in the classrooms after the debriefing. These student discussions centered on the idea that voting does make a difference in the context of the democratic process, but that even active, deliberate participation does not necessarily guarantee that the outcome of the vote will fall in line with one's own preferences. Some student voters found themselves at odds with the class majority during voting rounds but were unable to do anything about it. This issue surfaced in several students' post-debriefing comments regarding their attitude toward future voting. Some students pointed out that they had needed to persuade and negotiate with others for their voting preferences to even be considered. These students assumed the role of political activists, presumably reaching the conclusion that while voting was a necessary component to getting what they wanted in a democratic event, it was not the only component.

REFLECTIONS: WHAT WORKED?

Many parts of the class party exercise were effective. First, the children had a fun experience, not only enjoying the fruits of their decisions, but also participating in making those decisions themselves. Many of the teachers corresponded with us during the week of the party to inform us of the students' excitement about the party and the various decisions that they had made during the week. As described previously, several students were proud to assume the role of political activists during the class party and to see how their civic participation resulted in public goods mirroring their personal interest. This experiential aspect of the class party exercise can reinforce topic material from lectures, readings, or other formal homework (Sugar Reference Sugar1998).

Second, in most of the classes, elements of the class party differed from the preferences the students revealed during the debriefings. In one class, sports and video game themes were significantly more popular than the beach theme that had been chosen in the previous week via the voting process. Although people familiar with collective action theory might not be surprised by such an outcome, many students were surprised by the concept that something as seemingly democratic as a voluntary vote can produce an outcome that is not the most favored by the majority. Thus, the class party succeeded in creating an experiential experience that mimicked collective action.

Third, the debriefing became another way to engage students and reinforce lessons about political participation and the consequences of low levels of participation (Lederman Reference Lederman1992). We were able to talk to the students about how elected officials receive information, why they respond to certain things and not others, how a constituent could put an issue on the agenda of his or her elected representative, and related topics. How information was produced through voting during the class party was an important element of this discussion. As a result, the discussion on these topics was more nuanced and personal than a typical discussion following a textbook reading on the subject.

REFLECTIONS: WHAT DID NOT WORK?

The connection between the assessment instrument, the government quiz, and the desired pedagogical outcomes was weaker than we had hoped. The two items in the government quiz were too far removed in their wording from the students' experiences in creating and participating in the class party. Although the debriefing was directed at closing this gap, for some students, the connection between the class party and the government quiz was not clearly made. We suggest that other researchers use more pretests of their assessment instrument than we did.

The research design did not allow us to disaggregate a party/voting/debriefing effect from a teacher/classroom effect. The party and debriefing are nested within the teacher/classroom effect. There are two possible ways to address this. First, researchers could randomize students from all of the classes into each of the conditions, although this task might be logistically complicated across classes. Another option would be to make groups within classes. In this iteration of the exercise, an entire class would not participate in the same party, but rather, multiple class parties would occur in a single class and a student would attend his or her group's party. This approach might be more feasible logistically and might also make the impact of not voting or not seeing one's preferences realized more salient if individuals in the class were able to see others getting a party that they wanted. But in choosing this option, the individual groups are likely to be much smaller, which might minimize the free-rider effect (Olson Reference Olson1965) that we saw when using the class as a whole.

EXTENSIONS

An extension to the direct voting system used in the class party exercise would be to use a representative system. Instead of using direct voting to decide each of the party's elements, as we did, students could run for office, representing different manifestations of the party's elements (i.e., one student could represent “Green Planet/U2/Tacos,” another “Rodeo/Hannah Montana/Pizza,” and another “Under the Sea/Shakira/Ice Cream”). The purpose of this exercise would be to create the experience of costly individual voting along with the element of campaigning (with its effects on the costs and benefits of the public good), the ultimate election of the representative, and the realization of the newly formed public good.

If one teaches multiple classes (or multiple sections of a class), one might conduct the class party using both the representative and direct voting models. A joint debriefing might be held to compare and contrast the experiences of the different groups of students.