Teaching and learning in higher education is occurring, unavoidably, within the broader civic context of today’s extraordinarily polarizing political times. We seek to help students situate themselves with respect to and, above all, thoughtfully assess others’ as well as their own perspectives on issues of profound contention, without contributing to exacerbated polarization ourselves. Specifically, we offer students in our first-year exploratory political science course a vital tool—critical rigor—for navigating but not being inundated by the storm. This article discusses our experiences in teaching the course titled, “The Worlds of Politics,” as we attempt to help students deeply engage in cognitive processes of critical thinking and analysis, without undue infringement from their own—and least of all our own—personal political biases. Our focal learning objective is the cultivation of critical-thinking skills that promote students’ drawing of distinctions between advocacy and analysis, as well as their discerning civic engagement.

How can political science classes best prepare undergraduate students for the field of peace and conflict studies (PACS)? We argue that well-designed experiential learning activities provide opportunities for students to embrace complexity and practice adaptability, fusing the theoretical and practical in ways that prepare them to engage in PACS. This article presents one such experiential learning approach: a conflict analysis activity. Through engaging in a messy learning process, students (1) gain an increased theoretical understanding of the complexity of conflict, (2) practice adaptability, and (3) increase their self-efficacy. We provide a step-by-step description of the Conflict Analysis Tool exercise and reflect on how well the activity enables the use of knowledge and skills relevant for PACS. Our goal is that the insights gained through our approach will be helpful to other educators—from PACS to international relations to American politics and beyond.

Political polarization and generational politics are important topics in contemporary political science classrooms. This article presents an approach to teaching political polarization in an introduction to politics course. Coauthored by two Generation Z students from the course and their Boomer Generation professor, the article provides conflicting views of young people and politics as found in the work of Robert Putnam and Russell Dalton. The article presents survey data on affective and issue political polarization from the course, including discussion by the two student coauthors of the survey results interpreting their generation’s political polarization. The course approaches the introductory politics course using cognitive psychology concepts including confirmative bias, motivated reasoning, and other cognitive biases. Teaching from this micro-level perspective helps students to reflect on their own political biases. The article provides concepts and readings for political science professors to use in replicating the course.

This article addresses three related questions. Does voicing a political ideology in class make a professor less appealing to students? Does voicing an ideology in class make a professor less appealing to students with opposing views? Does the intensity of professors’ ideology affect their appeal? We conducted survey experiments in two public national universities to provide evidence of the extent to which students may tolerate or even prefer that professors share their political views and under which conditions these preferences may vary. Results from the experiments indicate that expressing a political opinion did not make a professor less appealing to students—and, in fact, made the professor more appealing to some students—but the perception that a professor’s ideology is particularly intense makes the class much less favorable for students with opposing views. Students are indifferent between moderately political and nonpolitical professors.

The ethical risks inherent in student research on political violence that involve human participants are myriad. Undergraduate and master’s students face constraints that are different than those for many doctoral students and faculty researchers, and it is the responsibility of educators and academic institutions to ensure that students engage in ethical practices and to mitigate risks. This article focuses on formal mechanisms of oversight. Drawing on discussions with colleagues across the globe, we describe how institutions can design oversight mechanisms to manage student research. We present five distinct models for how ethical oversight of student research is provided in academic programs around the world, considering the costs and benefits of each model. The article concludes that whereas the creation of oversight systems can seem daunting, it is useful to start small—indeed, moving from no oversight to some oversight is a significant improvement. Programs and academic units then can build on these early efforts, experiment with other systems, and eventually develop a system that is adapted to an institution through iterative improvements based on student and faculty experiences.

Learning theories in political science can be difficult for students. This article describes a technique that helps students to understand how a theory about human characteristics may impact behavior. I use a mini-simulation in which two volunteers are asked to enact a gimmick in front of the classroom, demonstrating the theory of human territoriality (Asal et al. 2018). As the volunteers engage in small talk, I point out that they engage with one another at a certain distance and angle that reflects social space. As the exercise progresses, students easily relate to the theory of human territoriality, which is defined as the symbolic and physical connection to a space considered as their own. This mini-simulation achieves the following learning objectives: understanding (1) that theories are relevant and help to explain human behavior; (2) the workings of the individual level of analysis; and (3) that theories are not universal and have limits to their application across culture, time, and space. This teaching technique does not require preparation time or resources, and students easily comprehend the expected learning outcomes. Having received overwhelmingly positive feedback in evaluations, I offer this as a viable technique for teaching theory in general because it helps students to comprehend what a theory is supposed to do—that is, to understand, explain, and sometimes predict behavior.