It all started with a scheduling conflict. Because of a Model United Nations conference, one student let me know that she would need to miss our research methods class the coming week. As hands popped up around the room I realized I would be missing almost a third of my class. Unfortunately they were going to miss crucial lectures on measures of significance and measures of association, without which they could be considerably lost when it came to the semester research paper.

Learning how to write a research paper is an important skill for political science majors, and faculty can also benefit when their students develop their research-paper-writing talents. Few departments, however, teach these skills explicitly, and many curricula seem to be based on the assumption that students will arrive at college with adequate basic writing skills. Several programs also suppose that a major will develop the ability to write a research paper through her experience with political science and other courses. These expectations are faulty, as most students are not “proficient” writers when they move to campus (McGrath 2004; NCWASC 2003, 16–7; Persky, Daane, and Jin 2003, 20–1), and writing a research paper in political science is a specific skill set that must be developed (Scholes 1998, 95; Russell 2002, 9–10). The approach I advocate here is to demystify the paper and the process for students by identifying and explaining the different parts of a typical paper—introduction, literature review, model and hypothesis, research design, analysis and assessment, and conclusion—and showing how the paper-writing process is broken into manageable tasks. While faculty know the components of research papers, most students have no idea what these sections should contain or what their titles mean. In addition, because revision and editing are essential general writing skills linked with the overall substantive learning process (NCWASC 2003, 1, 9; Maimon 2002, x), I suggest that students submit their papers in pieces, benefiting from feedback from faculty, peers, and themselves. In this essay, I unpack the parts of the paper and the writing process, providing suggestions for teaching about these segments and integrating research-paper-writing skills into the curriculum.

Lecture is, arguably, the oldest known instructional technique used in the university setting. Since it was first employed in Plato's Academy, lecture has become an indispensable part of teaching favored across the college and university curriculum. Recently, this time-honored method of instruction has come under attack for its presumed inability to foster higher order cognitive and attitudinal goals (Cashin 1985; Day 1980; Frederick 1999; Renner 1993). Critics of traditional lecture-based formats call for their replacement with active learning approaches that provide students with an opportunity to meaningfully talk, interact, write, read, and reflect on the content, ideas, and issues of an academic subject (Meyers and Jones 1993, 6).

From the beginning of my teaching career I had been drawn to class participation (Cohen 1991; 1993). I enjoyed posing questions and problems to the class, and they seemed to enjoy the interaction. At the same time, intuitively I was drawn to discussion and participation as ways to enhance learning. Later I learned that these were part of what was known as “active learning,” and they really did have the ability to enhance student learning (Barr and Tagg 1995; Chickering, Gamson, and Barsi 1989; Pascarella and Terenzini 2005, 101–2). My faith bolstered, I continued to explore ways to actively engage students through developing thought-provoking questions, assigning in-class writing, utilizing small group work, and integrating short presentations. Eventually I began to share my ideas with colleagues at conferences and publish them in respected journals. I discussed what I was doing in class, the basic principles underlying my approach, the challenges it provided, and the hoped-for results when it came to student learning.

The 2008 Teaching and Learning Conference (TLC) was held on February 22–24, 2008, in San Jose, California. This year marks the fifth annual TLC. The conference uses the Working Group model, permitting in-depth discussion and debate amongst colleagues on research dealing with the scholarship of teaching and learning. In addition to the 12 Working Groups, there were workshops on various topics. This year there were over 300 registrants, including college and university faculty, graduate students, high school teachers, nonprofit representatives, and others. Michael Brintnall and Kimberly Mealy of APSA offered welcoming remarks. APSA President Dianne Pinderhughes, University of Notre Dame, was the 2008 TLC opening speaker. Dr. Luis Fraga, former APSA council member and associate vice provost of the University of Washington, delivered the keynote address “The Responsibilities of Leadership: Political Science Education for the 21st Century.” The closing program featured short presentations from the chair of the Programming Committee, Sherri Wallace, and from each track moderator. It is our hope that the ideas generated and shared at the TLC will help to foster debate, research, and pedagogical innovations within the discipline.

If the presentations and discussions of the Program Assessment track are any indication, assessment in political science is slowly moving forward. Several presentations provided excellent ideas for instructors and departments seeking to get started and move beyond to take assessment seriously. Presenters and discussants were a mix of veterans and newcomers to assessment from a range of institutions, but the group largely shared an understanding that assessment done well is really a conversation about teaching. Teaching political science is something that we all care about.

How well do we prepare our graduate students for the diverse careers they pursue in teaching, research, and outside of academia? This is the second time Graduate Education has been a track in the TLC, and this year we have also incorporated topics related to professional development. Despite the diversity of our presentations, we arrived at a unifying theme for our track: we must prepare graduate students for the multiple arenas they will enter into after graduation. We discussed at length how most of our graduate students seek something other than the traditional, research-oriented model of graduate education that we experienced. They seek a graduate experience that is civically engaged, prepares them for teaching in addition to research, and is perhaps more connected to disciplines outside of political science. Either we provide graduate students a framework of knowledge consistent with these demands or they will be left to develop these skills through trial and error alone. In support of this goal, we urge systemic change to our professional institutions that will value and reward a more holistic approach to graduate education and professional development. Elements of such change can be found in the variety of presentations contained in our track.

The participants in the Diversity, Inclusiveness, and Inequality track represented a great deal of diversity themselves and included faculty and students from a rich variety of research institutions, private liberal arts colleges, and community colleges. While participants engaged issues and strategies in each of the three substantive areas—diversity, inclusiveness, and inequality in education (DIIE)—the bulk of our conversations focused on diversity and inequality. Topics included curriculum and course content issues, negotiating institutional support for DIIE, challenges of student recruitment and retention, and negotiating power relationships and identities among different kinds of student populations both within and outside of the classroom. This summary reviews four sets of questions that the group addressed and that point to critical areas rich for future research and reflection. In brief these are: (1) How can we simultaneously promote learning about difference and learning about ourselves? (2) How can faculty develop a range of strategic pedagogies and classroom environments in order to avoid some of the challenges inherent in teaching about DIIE? (3) How can we move beyond narrow understandings of diversity that limit the concept solely to a category of identity, neglecting the ways in which diversity and inequality are categories of analysis, processes, and indicative of power relations? (4) What steps are necessary to more fully integrate DIIE across the political science curriculum?

A diverse group of 25 faculty and graduate students participated in the 2008 Teaching Research Methods (TRM) track. Participants represented a range of institutions—public and private, urban and rural, domestic and international, large research universities and teaching colleges. Presentations provided evidence of the heterogeneity in methods instruction and of pedagogical innovations in course design and delivery. The discussion in this year's meeting echoed and built upon prior meetings, reflecting the workshop format and participation of several track members in successive TLC meetings. The recommendations formulated by the track will be discussed following a brief summary of the presentations and discussion.

The Simulations and Role Play I track examined a broad range of approaches to classroom simulations and role-playing exercises. The presentations covered designs that operate online and face-to-face, model decision making at local and international levels, and run from only a few minutes to an entire semester. Participants and discussants identified several elements that are common to successful simulations. These elements included establishing clear objectives for a simulation prior to its use in a course, designing simulations to actively engage students in the learning process, and using simulations to develop professional skills, empathy, and intercultural understanding among students. The track members agreed that simulations need not be time intensive in preparation or presentation, but can be flexible and made to fit unique situations. Finally, while simulations may not increase student perceptions of the quality of instruction, the simulations do seem to increase student empathy and student decision-making skills, which are worthwhile achievements.

The 2008 Simulations and Role Play (S&RP) II track focused on issues in American politics and theory. Building on conversations in previous tracks (see S&RP track summaries from 2006 and 2007 in PS), the 25 discussants focused the dialogue mainly on best practices with some discussion on faculty research.

The Core Curriculum/General Education track comprised a wide range of institutions, different areas of expertise, and levels of teaching. Institutions represented were both private and public, and four year colleges and community colleges. Participants were made up of seasoned and experienced teachers, novice teachers, and graduate students. Presenters described their innovative teaching techniques and how they could be effectively employed both inside and outside the classroom. Presentations gave rise to the discussion of various teaching methods and how to tailor the techniques to fit specific needs. In the ensuing discussion one thing became apparent. The goal of the successful teacher is to engage students in a number of ways.

Political science has always pondered questions of civic engagement. Socrates described and defended his intimate engagement with Athens in the Apology and Aristotle argued in the Politics that it was only through engagement with the polis that humans could set forth and discuss notions of justice. Stephen Leonard (1999) and Hindy Schachter (1998) pointed out in earlier volumes of this journal that at the end of the nineteenth century the “founding fathers” of modern academic political science were motivated by ideas of improving citizens through civic education. And this has continued to be a focus for the American Political Science Association (APSA) through collaborative efforts such as the 1996 Task Force on Civic Education for the Next Century or, more recently, tracks during the association's Teaching and Learning Conference.

The participants in the Civic Engagement II track focused our attention on what we termed “the trifecta of civic engagement,” namely engaging students, contributing to the community, and changing institutional commitments of the university.

The Teaching Across the Discipline track explored the ways in which political scientists can enhance student learning through innovative techniques that connect political science to other academic disciplines and co-curricular activities. Participants in the discussion agreed that using such techniques require instructors willing to take a risk. That risk, which may involve borrowing from other disciplines, sharing power with students in the classroom, requiring students to engage with civic leaders, pitting students in debate and competition with each other, and recognizing that political science does not exist in a vacuum, can have great rewards for students and faculty alike. Those rewards include students' true engagement in the learning process and with it enlightenment on political issues and theories; and for professors, the satisfaction of knowing that they have helped to bring their students “out of the cave.”

The participants in Internationalizing the Curriculum I took a multi-level approach to considering the challenges of incorporating global issues into higher education. Our discussion—facilitated by track moderator Pamela Zeiser (University of North Florida)—focused primarily on the challenges of internationalizing the curriculum on four levels: the student, the course, the program, and the institution. Within this general framework the group addressed many related pedagogical issues, such as active learning, the role of technology, the effective use of distance learning, and how each complements or challenges the learning environment and the goal of internationalizing the curriculum.

Recent technological changes, particularly in the field of communications, have brought the world much closer than ever in the history of humankind. These changes, sometimes called globalization, require a paradigm shift in our thinking, teaching materials, and methods of delivery. This quantum leap is required not only in the subfield of international relations, but rather in all subfields of political science. There is also a dire need to learn from each others' experiences and give new direction to our teaching subfields.