What is the probability of students cheating?

I found myself asking this question quite literally recently, when 10 of my students in an upper-level undergraduate methods course turned in identical results for a take-home exercise. Of course, on some exercises I expect students to produce identical findings, such as when I ask for the mean and variance of a particular variable. In this case, however, I had asked students to produce a new random variable and to summarize its values in a frequency distribution. My initial reaction was to suspect the students of collaborating on the exercise (contrary to my syllabus and the assignment's instructions), though the number of students who produced identical results—10 out of a class of 30—made me skeptical that so many students could conspire so effectively. The very nature of the students made it unlikely that they collaborated together. I teach at a large public-service university, with students that represent a broad variety of backgrounds, nationalities, interests, and ages. The course also is cross-listed among disciplines, so the 10 students included both political science and geography majors. My review of the names of the 10 students persuaded me that it was highly unlikely that they cheated. I have found, furthermore, that many students will not voluntarily work in groups. So how did this diverse group of students produce an identical “random” variable?

My investigation of this question took me well beyond issues of student conduct. To answer the question to my satisfaction, I found I had to understand how campus computer networks operate and ultimately how the statistical software my students use works. My journey took me into the arcane world of “random” numbers in computers, and required me to understand how statistical software generates so-called pseudo-random numbers. When I finally found an answer to my puzzle, I learned that the problem was not with my students, but with the software on which we all rely for research and, increasingly, pedagogy. Many researchers today know there is no such thing as a computer-generated truly random number. Although many political scientists know this has profound consequences for their work—whether for sampling purposes or Monte Carlo experiments—to my knowledge instructors of quantitative methods courses have given little thought to its implications in the classroom. For one, it is easy and tempting to mistake the problems of pseudo-random number generation for student malfeasance. For another, it speaks to the students' (and instructor's) conceptual grasp of the slippery idea of “randomness.” For this reason, I offer my own experience as a cautionary tale.

During the Cold War, whistle-blowers and dissenters were threatened and penalized; they lost jobs, faced social and governmental harassment, and often lived thankless and persecuted lives. It was never entirely clear where the speech boundaries lay, or when one might get sanctioned. Today, the “War on Terror” is becoming a hegemonic framework, the Patriot Act has been made permanent, and there are ongoing revelations about increased surveillance in the United States. Along with these developments, there are increasing efforts to punish academics for expressing contentious views. At a minimum, teaching topics that disrupt the comfort zone can be emotionally draining and may produce some negative reactions in the classroom. Under such pressures, self-censorship can be a natural consequence. Yet open democratic deliberation, well-rounded education, and intellectual freedom are prerequisites for best serving our world.

The 3rd Annual APSA Conference on Teaching and Learning in Political Science hosted over 300 participants in lively discussions of trends, techniques, and models in teaching in political science. Held in downtown Washington, D.C. on February 18–20, the Conference was organized as a workshop-based forum to develop models of teaching and learning as well as to discuss broad themes affecting political science education today. Joining the discussion, APSA President Ira Katznelson (Columbia University) and keynote speaker Thomas E. Cronin (Colorado College) shared their thoughts on teaching and learning in the discipline. For a full list of participants and more information on the 2006 Conference, visit www.apsanet.org/section_236.cfm. For information on the 2007 Conference, contact [email protected].

The Teaching Research Methods Track at the third annual APSA Teaching and Learning Conference included 26 participants from schools ranging from small colleges to major research universities. The program included presentations on the state of the undergraduate research methods field, information literacy, and a variety of teaching innovations, culminating in a large group discussion where we agreed upon a common set of strengths, opportunities, and challenges to teaching research methods, as well as a set of recommendations for a future Conference track.

Understanding the importance of using technological tools in teaching political science, the organizers of the APSA Teaching and Learning Conference dedicated two tracks to teaching with technology. Track I was moderated by Robert H. Trudeau of Providence College.

Blended learning describes the integration of computer-assisted teaching techniques with traditional approaches. Participants in the Teaching and Technology II Track considered several technology-driven means that contribute to effective learning to uncover a provocative array of blending processes. Presentations and discussion revolved around a variety of factors brought together by technology: traditional and modern views on technology and society, blogging and customary writing assignments, tech-savvy and conventional faculty, and multi-national faculty and students in a single classroom. Participants left the conference invigorated by the demonstrated possibilities, mindful of the challenges posed by cost and tradition, and focused on the successful use of technology to deliver the desired end—more effective teaching.

Assessment is of increasing importance for political science faculty and departments across the discipline. One indicator of this relevance is the diversity of backgrounds of the 24 presenters and participants in our track, ranging from graduate students to full professors and deans, housed in institutions of higher learning ranging from community colleges to Ivy League universities, and belonging to departments ranging in size from 40 majors to over 1,100. Some attended because they wanted to share their enthusiasm for assessment, while others were interested in learning more about a process they were forced into by administrators, legislatures, or accreditation agencies. The group discussed many different aspects of assessment, including designing measurements for classroom and program assessment as well as some of the problems linked to assessment. We proposed the following summary conclusions:

At the third annual APSA Teaching and Learning Conference, attendees in the Assessment/Learning Outcomes II session engaged in vigorous discussion over how best to integrate assessment with learning. The participants reflected a good mix of both community college and university perspectives, yet found that the necessity for efficacious assessment cuts across the discipline; concerted efforts should be made to encourage and enhance learning and consequently, assessment. Key themes that emerged from the track are reviewed below.

Assessment, by definition, is a means of estimating the quality or value of something. In this case assessment may be geared toward students directly in the form of enhancing learning, faculty in terms of better teaching, departments for improved curriculum development, and institutions for the purpose of public relations, resource allocation, and accreditation. This panel examined assessment in all of these cases, with a particular focus on assessment of learning outcomes. Learning outcomes are at the very essence of what we as teachers are trying to achieve and assessment provides us with ways to determine whether we are actually meeting these goals. The purpose of this track was to examine both assessment and learning outcomes and to develop ways to improve both. This article synthesizes the main findings of papers presented in the track together with the ensuing discussion. The article is split into five major topics: the role of assessment, the uses of assessment, the inevitability of assessment, approaches of assessment, and how we do assessment.

Undergraduates often have difficulty conceptualizing phenomena for which they have little experience, such as life in an Islamic state or the pressures of foreign policy decision making. The participants of the S&RP Track I explored multiple ways political science might address this challenge. While the exercises employed by participants differed, the desire to help students experientially learn key concepts and materials provided the central motivation. S&RP are a valuable complement to traditional teacher-centered methods of content delivery, such as lectures that tend to focus on acquisition of knowledge without reflection. One clear advantage of S&RP is the ability to encourage synthesis and evaluation of information by literally taking students out of their chairs and having them “learn by doing.” Such strategies help students shift their roles from being passive receivers of information to active participants in the learning process. The participants of this track felt strongly that S&RP can play a vital role for students, faculty, and their institutions by enhancing faculty ability to impart key skills, analytical tools, and varied perspectives to students who in turn become empowered as a part of their own education. As institutions compete for students and students demand applicable courses, novel teaching methods that make clear connections between political instruction and the lived realities of those taught benefit everyone.

Participants in this track were delighted to see a number of common themes develop during our presentations and discussions throughout the conference. Participants included faculty and graduate students from a variety of subfields who design creative exercises to actively engage their students in learning. With the wide range of simulations that already exist and the growing body of literature addressing the design of new simulations, faculty have significant resources at their disposal to incorporate simulations into their courses. Simulations are so readily adaptable they can accommodate almost any course content or learning objective.

Community-based learning (CBL) reflects the principle that political science courses should do more than simply teach students about politics. As participants in the community-based learning track, we believe that courses in our discipline should equip students with the combination of knowledge, skills, and values required to engage in a life of active citizenship. Designing a course that meets these goals is not impossible. Community-based projects include several different types of experiential learning, including: service-learning, community-based learning, and community-based research. We believe that all of these forms of learning about, from, and with the community inspire and encourage students to live an active political life.

Adiverse gathering of academics convened to discuss Community and Service-based Learning (CBSL). The common bond amongst all was the belief that developing tangible linkages with the community through myriad “service” instruments is critical in producing a holistic educational experience. Our common agreement was that CBSL programs must be well-structured, academically rigorous, and properly assessed and evaluated in order for students to obtain the most out of the experiences. The goal of CBSL II was to address these issues and discuss what does and does not work.

Activities, Administrative Appointments, New Appointments, Visiting and Temporary Positions, Promotions, Awards, Retirements, For the Record, In the News, Booklist, and American Academy of Arts and Sciences Elects New Fellows.

Gilbert Yale Steiner, an accomplished student of social policy and an influential director of the Brookings Institution's Governmental Studies program, died on March 1, 2006, in Washington, D.C., at the age of 81.

Michael Wallerstein, the Charlotte Marion Saden Professor of Political Science at Yale University, died on January 7, 2006, at his home in New Haven. He was just short of his 55th birthday. The cause was glioblastoma multiforme, a brain cancer.

At age 93, William H. Young died at his home in Madison, Wisconsin, on March 3, 2006. His long career was distinguished for contributions not only to political science and to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, on whose faculty he served for 36 years, but also to Wisconsin state government, international educational development, particularly in Asia, and several Madison organizations on whose boards he remained an active member for more than two decades after his academic retirement in 1983. Bill was wise and prudent, and, as I well knew from our 35 years as faculty colleagues, his advice was judicious and generously provided.

On February 4, 2006, after careful deliberation and consideration of the Association's Bylaws and the Council's charge as articulated by President Ira Katznelson, and after canvassing the membership for suggestions as articulated in the APSA Constitution, the 2005–2006 Nominating Committee submitted the following slate of elective Officers. In its deliberations, the Committee was mindful of giving due regard to diversity, geographical distribution, fields of professional interest, type of institution, academic/nonacademic employment status, as well as to the Council's guidance to take into account non-Ph.D.-granting institutions in the nomination of candidates, and to avoid selecting a nominee for president of the same gender for more than two consecutive years.

APSA is excited to once again return to the wonderful city of Philadelphia for the 102nd Annual Meeting, which will be held from August 31–September 3, 2006. There is no place more fitting than the birthplace of our nation to embark on a discussion centered on the meeting's theme, “Power Reconsidered.”

The APSA Council met April 22, 2006 at the Midwest Political Science Association's Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois. The following are highlights from the meeting.