This article was downloaded by: [141.214.17.222]On: 18 November 2014, At: 16:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Political Science EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upse20

Practice Makes Perfect: EngagingStudent-Citizens in Politics throughTheory and PracticeKaren Csajko a & Kara Lindaman aa Winona State UniversityPublished online: 08 Feb 2011.

To cite this article: Karen Csajko & Kara Lindaman (2011) Practice Makes Perfect: Engaging Student-Citizens in Politics through Theory and Practice, Journal of Political Science Education, 7:1, 65-78,DOI: 10.1080/15512169.2011.539917

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2011.539917

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Practice Makes Perfect: Engaging Student-Citizensin Politics through Theory and Practice

KAREN CSAJKOKARA LINDAMAN

Winona State University

We study one aspect of the relationship between theory and politics, in order to beginto address this issue of political science education— specifically focusing on whetherparticipation in the election process as voting monitors, combined with politicalscience education, can help students better understand politics as democratic engage-ment. In fall 2008, Winona State University applied for and received a U.S. ElectionAssistance Grant to recruit and train 100 college students to serve as poll workers inthe 2008 general election. The purpose of our study will be to test the hypothesis thatthe experience as election judges enables a real practice and application ofdemocratic engagement. Three different groups of students are surveyed usingpre- and postsurveys through the Carnegie Political Engagement Project surveyinstrument. We hypothesize the findings to be twofold. First, students who partici-pate as election judges experience a higher level of political efficacy and civicengagement. Second, students who participate in the college poll worker programAND in courses of political science are more enlightened citizens. The findingssuggest that theory does indeed inform political practice.

Keywords citizens, civic engagement, students, volunteering

‘‘[A]ll education must begin by initiating the young and new into the habits and waysof their people,’’ according to Peter Euben (1994, 2).1 For higher education inAmerica, this can mean engaging college students in both democratic political prac-tices and theories. But because there are disagreements on the meaning of democ-racy, as well as the purpose of education, not everyone would agree thatAmerica’s way of life can be characterized in terms of participatory democracy.As Euben explains:

Citizenship today primarily signifies a legal status that accrues to allindividuals born into a society. In turn, that society guarantees themrights against both the state and other individuals. But if this is all thatcitizenship implies, then nonparticipation in politics is simply a choice

This project was first conceived and shared at the American Political Science AssociationTeaching and Learning Conference Annual Meeting, San Jose, California, 2008. A previousversion of this manuscript was presented at the Midwest Political Science Association AnnualMeeting in Chicago, Illinois, 2009. The authors thank the panel discussants and participantsfor their helpful comments and suggestions.

Address correspondence to Kara Lindaman, 175 W. Mark St., Winona, MN 55987.E-mail: klindaman@winona.edu

Journal of Political Science Education, 7:65–78, 2011Copyright # 2011 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1551-2169 print=1551-2177 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15512169.2011.539917

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

6:04

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

made by people who have more pressing things to do . . .And if thesystem ‘‘works,’’ if checks and balances indeed preclude anarchy andtyranny, then there is really no need for civic virtue or political educationat all. (Euben 1994, 2–3)

In the face of arguments that American democracy is necessarily elitist,security-driven, expert rule—requiring apathetic or alienated subjects, not engagedcitizens—we would maintain that it is exactly the tradition of civic engagement inAmerican politics that such alternative understandings and practices tend to under-mine. And, in light of that threat, we offer an example of an educational experiencedesigned to introduce students to political engagement, combining both politicalactivity and critical reflection on that activity, with the goal of accomplishing whatEuben suggests: The introduction of students to the habits and ways of the Americancitizenry, that is, the perhaps fragile American tradition of participatory democracy.

As suggested, there are arguments that portray American democracy to be otherthan participatory—and such arguments can point to American tradition, just asarguments supporting civic engagement can. Unlike Athenian direct democracy,the American version is liberal representative democracy; and liberal political theoryand practice has tended to emphasize rights and processes rather than citizen partici-pation. Robert Dahl says, ‘‘[T]he primacy of politics in the lives of citizens of a demo-cratic order is a myth’’ (Euben 1994, 5). It was not a myth for fifth century Atheniansbut often has been for Americans whose only political act at times has been the vote.2

And the apathy of American citizens may not be an accident, but a tendency of theliberal tradition itself.3 According to Sheldon Wolin, Ellen Wood, and others, Amer-ica’s founding fathers were not all in agreement on the benefits of citizen partici-pation. James Madison’s statement, ‘‘Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates,every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob’’ is just one example (Madison1992, 285).4 Representative government, interest group politics, bureaucratized cen-tral government, nonelected courts, and large state size all have operated to limitpopular participation in the United States (Wolin 1994, 33; Wood 1994, 63). Tenden-cies already inherent in the liberal tradition only have become exacerbated in the insti-tutionalized bureaucratized modern state. Hannah Arendt and Michel Foucault bothhave warned against the ‘‘rule of nobody’’ that can make political participation andindividual responsibility even less likely (Arendt 1986; Foucault 1995). Alan Keenansays, ‘‘Although the central principles of democracy . . .may thus still be formallyenshrined in the laws and political institutions, the people themselves are increasinglylocked out of their own political system. Such closures are both procedural . . . andsubstantive’’ (2003, 3). In light of such closures, civic engagement begins to seem irrel-evant, impossible, inefficient, excessive—appearing to be, as Dahl says, a myth.

Does that mean that we should give up on participatory democracy as an imposs-ible ideal and should direct students to internships that will teach them to work in thebureaucracies of the modern state? Should we indoctrinate passive students in the the-ories they will need to know, working as professionals in the institutions of govern-ment? Many will argue no; in addition to a tradition of representation, alienation,and expert rule in American politics, there is also a strong tradition of civicparticipation, dating back to the American Revolution. Sheldon Wolin says:

During the revolutions, politics was primarily the affair of ‘‘civil society,’’not of conventional political parties or parliamentary processes. Various

66 K. Csajko and K. Lindaman

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

6:04

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

extralegal groups of workers, teachers, intellectuals, artists, students,religious dissidents, and ordinary citizens energized and sustainedrevolutionary movements whose internal politics was remarkablyparticipatory and egalitarian. (Wolin 1994, 30)5

Such sentiment follows Jefferson, ‘‘I know of no safe repository of the ultimatepower of society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightenedenough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not totake it from them but to inform their discretion’’ (Euben 1994, 1). Alexis deTocqueville asks in the 1830s:

How does it happen that in the United States, where the inhabitants haveonly recently immigrated to the land which they now occupy . . . thateveryone takes as zealous an interest in the affairs of his township, hiscounty, and the whole state as if they were his own? It is becauseeveryone, in his sphere, takes an active part in the government of society.(de Tocqueville 1990, 243)

And most recently, Archon Fung offers two examples from Chicago of‘‘empowered participation,’’ defined as ‘‘people should have substantial and equalopportunities to participate directly in decisions that affect them’’—in his exampleslocal decision making on schools and law enforcement (Fung 2004, 4). These exam-ples, and more, seem to support what Benjamin Barber calls the ‘‘revolutionaryspirit’’ in democratic politics—each generation reembracing political principles asthey engage with each other in shaping their common lives, making those principlesa living reality (Barber 1996, 351).

How do we introduce students to the habits and ways of life in a participatorydemocracy? Many theorists supporting an American tradition of civic engagementsuggest that political participation itself is an education. This idea can be found inCarol Pateman, who says, ‘‘The major function of participation in the theory ofparticipatory democracy is therefore an educative one . . .Participation developsand fosters the very qualities necessary for it; the more individuals participate thebetter able they become to do so’’ (1970, 42–43). The political community changesas citizens engage in civic activity, and citizens change through their engagementas well, becoming more aware of their responsibility and connection to others inthe public realm. As Hanna Pitkin says, ‘‘[T]he crucial function of political engage-ment itself [is] in connecting personal with public good, interest with principle. Theseconnections only get made if people jointly make them for themselves’’ (1982, 46).Incorporating opportunities for public engagement in the classroom can introducestudents to this democratic experience. The importance of this is recognized in theAPSA mission statement of 2000, which reads in part, the task for the field lies in‘‘serving the public, including disseminating research and preparing citizens to beeffective citizens and political participants’’ (Snyder 2001, 301). It is reiterated alsoin the recent emphasis on service-learning on campuses across the United States,service-learning defined by Siegrun Fox Freyss is preparing students for the roleof citizen and generating a sense of community with social groups the student mightnot otherwise encounter (2006, 137).

But, while the promise of political participation as an education in itself mayhave been fulfilled in fifth century Athens—a democracy whose citizens engaged

Engaging Student-Citizens in Politics 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

6:04

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

in politics in the Assembly, the courts, and even in the marketplace—in liberaldemocratic America, whose political institutions and tradition often have operatedto stifle participation, more may be required than participation alone.6 This wouldbe suggested by our study of 77 Winona State University (WSU) college students,recruited to serve as poll workers in the 2008 general election.7 In accordance witha U.S. Election Assistance Commission grant, these student poll workers were sur-veyed before and after their public service. Results of these surveys show that whenstudent political participation is reinforced with coursework—i.e., readings, lectures,and discussions on political science and public administration—then this has a stat-istically significant effect on student understanding of their experiences. Coursesfocused on citizenship, political institutions, and political theories prepare studentsto analyze their activities as engaged citizens; to reflect on those activities in lightof larger issues and problems in the public realm; and to see their experiences inthe context of political processes that often operate to alienate or exclude citizens.The link between student experience and coursework provides a feedback loop oftenmissing in civic engagement and offers students a stronger learning experience,directed toward building habits of participation for the future. This addresses animportant goal of democracy articulated by John Dewey; ‘‘participatory, social,and creative feedback as the essence of democracy: a democratic public exists whenindividuals in society can collectively recognize and sensibly respond to the problemsthat arise from their interactions with one another’’ (Fung 2004, 15–16).

Our findings are reinforced by discussions of service-learning, which haveemphasized the importance of coursework to the experience of political partici-pation. Service-learning has been distinguished, therefore, from volunteer programs,community service, partisan activities, and internships. Mary A. Hepburn, RichardG. Niemi, and Chris Chapman have indicated, ‘‘Community service refers to a widevariety of volunteer work done in the community . . . it is not necessarily part of a for-mal educational program or curriculum. Service learning, then, is a particular formof community service in which traditional coursework is linked to volunteerexperiences in the community’’ (Hepburn, Niemi, and Chapman 2000, 618). SusanDicklitch warns that if learning is not emphasized in service-learning, ‘‘you canreinforce the gap between the student and ‘other’’’—in other words, rather thanexperiencing commonality with fellow citizens through one’s participation, onemight experience the other as an object of one’s own charitable activity (Dicklitch2003, 773).8 Another type of problem arises if we conflate internships withservice-learning. Freyss points out that the goals of each activity differ, insofar asinternships are meant to prepare students for a future career and to provide somework experience, while the goal of service-learning is to prepare students for the roleof active engaged citizens (Freyss 2006, 137). Tobi Walker adds that if students onlythink of civic engagement as an individual results-driven activity, they do not chal-lenge institutions in power—the necessity of which can be learned through one’scoursework (Walker 2000, 647). Likewise, service-learning is to be distinguishedfrom partisan politics—and political education can teach the perils of factions div-isive to a political community.9 The goal of service-learning is, as Michael X. DelliCorpini and Scott Keefer say, reiterating the sentiments of many democratic theor-ists, ‘‘the development of life-long habits of engagement in democratic citizenship’’—and classroom education is an important part of this (2000, 636).

Therefore, our project on democracy is meant to include both aspects ofeducation so important to participatory democracy: to introduce students to practice

68 K. Csajko and K. Lindaman

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

6:04

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and theories both, which will emphasize the importance of civic engagement toreviving this threatened aspect of the American political tradition. But can a projectfocused on election judging do that? Is voting itself not seen as part of the liberaltradition, helping to alienate citizens from politics, reducing their participation toone day every two to four years? But representation and institutions are not neces-sarily in opposition to democratic participation.10 Pitkin says, ‘‘Representation,delegation, cooperation, federation, and other kinds of devolution are entirely com-patible with democracy; though they do not constitute it and cannot guarantee it’’(Pitkin 1982, 50–51). That an institution such as voting cannot guarantee democracycan be seen by the attempts made throughout American history to erect obstacles tocitizen access to that right. Poll taxes, grandfather laws, and more recently stringentID requirements have all interfered with citizens’ ability to exercise their right tovote. Election judging takes on a certain meaning in the context of barriers prevent-ing citizens from acting—in such a context, election judging is meant to providemore openness and mutuality in the public sphere, not just to prevent disorderly con-duct at polling places (Pitkin 1982, 47). Election judging engages student-citizens inthe voting process in order to ensure that other citizens have the ability to exercisetheir rights. This goes beyond the liberal emphasis on rights, which often fails to takeinto consideration the actual ability to exercise those rights. Student-citizens in theirengagement and coursework are introduced to what it means to be a citizen in ademocracy; if experience is reinforced by political science coursework, they cancontribute to, and be changed by, their activity in the public realm.

Data and Methods

As mentioned above, this study is funded by a U.S. Election Assistance Commissiongrant (‘‘Developing Young Voters as Public Servants’’), whose purpose is to increasestudent political participation beyond Get Out The Vote (GOTV) efforts and voterturnout. The grant aims to enhance student involvement in the election process, inorder to diversify the traditional poll worker population, both in terms of demogra-phics and technical skills. In our study, we surveyed two groups of students, recruitedto serve as election judges in the 2008 election: Students enrolled in at least one politicalscience or public administration course (60% of students surveyed or 40 students); andstudents not enrolled in political science or public administration courses (48% or 37students). We did not include students enrolled in political science courses who didnot serve as election judges in the 2008 election, insofar as the purpose of our studywas to determine the effect of both coursework and public service on students’ politicalunderstanding of their political engagement (Lindaman and Charles 2008a; 2008b).

The WSU students participating in this study were surveyed before and aftertheir public service as election judges, using the Carnegie Political EngagementSurvey pre- and posttests.11 All 77 students participating in the study completed bothtests. Responses were entered into a larger dataset and were analyzed for effects onstudent political activities or understanding of politics, with student engagement aselection judges serving as the intervening event between the pre-and posttests. InTable 1, the initial results of the student survey show the effect of election judgingon students’ political efficacy. Before they served as election judges, the studentswere surveyed regarding their abilities to make a difference. After their participationas election judges, their evaluation of their ability to make a difference increasedaccording to these comparisons of means.12

Engaging Student-Citizens in Politics 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

6:04

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

According to the Carnegie Political Engagement Survey, political activitiesare defined to include volunteerism and voter turnout. But since the purpose ofthe U.S. Election Assistance Commission grant is to increase participation beyondvolunteerism and voter turnout; and since our interest is in change in political under-standing, rather than effects on volunteerism and voter turnout; in the first model,we have included results with three measures of political understanding, as wellas volunteer political activities and voter turnout as our dependent variables(Lindaman 2009). The second model focuses more specifically on the effects of stu-dent responses on their understanding of politics, which should demonstrate ourhypothesis: political engagement educates citizens and leads to political under-standing, as is often supposed by democratic theorists, but only when that activityis reinforced by political science coursework.

The dependent variable of focus in this study is political understanding. Wehypothesize that, when joined by coursework—measured by readings, lectures,and discussions (question #26 in the survey)—student service as poll workers hasa statistically significant effect on their political understanding (question #30 inthe survey). And, conversely, without the coursework, students’ service as electionjudges does not have a statistically significant effect on their political understanding.So, once again, democratic theorists assume political engagement leads to politicalunderstanding, however we add an important caveat. Political engagement—or,specifically, serving as election judges or poll workers—only leads to politicalunderstanding when the experience is complemented with coursework.

This is important to political science education. As many colleges and universi-ties seek new and innovative ways to attract additional enrollments throughinvestments in community outreach and service-learning, the feedback loop or thereflective piece of the experience is often missing, feedback that would give theexperience long-lasting effect on student learning and outcomes (Hoy and Meisel2008). Thus, a feedback loop exists between political understanding and politicalengagement, which is closed with the addition of political science courses, since

Table 1. Student responses before and after election judge participation

Survey Questions Pretest Mean (SD) Posttest Mean (SD)

I feel that I have a pretty goodunderstanding of the political issuesfacing our country.

4.078 (1.121) 4.739 (0.989)

I believe that I have a role to play in thepolitical process.

4.558 (1.381) 4.788 (1.103)

When policy issues or problems arebeing discussed, I usually havesomething to say.

4.364 (1.245) 4.667 (1.181)

I think that I am better informed aboutpolitics and government than mostpeople.

3.714 (1.468) 4.470 (1.338)

I consider myself well qualified toparticipate in the political process.

4.273 (1.401) 4.606 (1.288)

N¼ 77.

70 K. Csajko and K. Lindaman

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

6:04

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

political understanding is statistically significant, which reaffirms the connections wehypothesize between coursework and engagement as an election judge. Without thecoursework, students do not reflect on their political experience or understand it inthe larger context of politics. In order to reach the level of excellence prescribed inthe Bonner Model of Student Development and Engagement or to achieve theunderstanding of self and identity indicated in the American Association of Collegesand Universities (AAC&U) ‘‘Greater Expectations for the 21st Century,’’ it is essen-tial to develop the research and analytical skills learned in political science coursesnecessary for reflecting on one’s political engagement (Hoy and Meisel 2008). Withpolitical science coursework, a student’s political engagement appears to havegreater meaning for the individual, which can lead to the desired result: furtherengagement in democratic citizenship.

We acknowledge that there are limitations to these hypotheses, insofar as wecannot predict long-term student political engagement or sustained understanding.But the linkages that we do make between coursework, political engagement, andpolitical understanding are measurable. This process deserves analysis, despite theabsence of longitudinal study and long-term implications, due to the contributionthat the service of college students as election judges in the 2008 elections made totheir community, as well as to their own understanding and experience of citizenship.In addition, this study might serve as a basis for further analysis, including the studyof implications for longer term political participation.

The Feedback Loop

In order to measure the effects of classroom and political experience on student polit-ical understanding, an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model is used wherethe independent variables of race and ethnicity, income, age, and party identificationare regressed on the dependent variable. The dependent variable measures studentvolunteerism in political activities and turnout. The dependent variable changesfrom student volunteerism in political activities, turnout in national elections, under-standing of political institutions, processes, and policies, in-depth understanding ofa particular issue or set of issues, understanding of values and ethical dimensionsin politics, and overall evaluation of the election judge experience.13

In the first model found in Table 2, the dependent variable of political volunteer-ism is measured through student responses to the specific question: ‘‘What is yourinterest in working with a political group or volunteering for a campaign?’’ It alsois measured through student responses to the question: ‘‘How often do you votein national elections?’’ It is hypothesized that student coursework will not be statisti-cally significant from zero in determining whether or not students will volunteer incandidate campaigns and organizations, or whether or not students will vote.

Since the intent of the grant is to encourage college student participation beyondvolunteerism and GOTV efforts, the second model is offered, in which politicalunderstanding is measured by student responses to questions in the Carnegie Polit-ical Engagement survey question #30, concerning the effect of their service as anelection judge on: (1) ‘‘In-depth understanding of a particular issue or set of issues’’;(2) ‘‘Understanding political institutions, processes, and policies’’; and (3) ‘‘Under-standing the values and ethical dimensions involved in politics.’’ As a dependentvariable, it is measured whether or not coursework for these politically activestudents has an effect or no effect on political understanding.

Engaging Student-Citizens in Politics 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

6:04

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table

2.Thedeterminants

ofpoliticalengagem

ent

Model

1:TheDeterminants

ofVolunteerism

andGOTV

Model

2:TheDeterminants

ofPoliticalUnderstanding

(supported

byresearchfundingandhypothesis)

Volunteer

Political

Activities

GOTV:

Voter

Turnout

Understandingpolitical

institutions,

processes,

andpolicies

In-depth

understanding

ofaparticularissue

orsetofissues

Understandingthe

values

andethical

dim

ensionsinvolved

inpolitics

Constant

4.948(.852)

5.606(.211)

5.311(.856)

2.024(1.152)

2.289(.976)

Coursew

ork:Readings,

Lectures,Discussions

.003(.003)

.001(.001)

.010��

(.003)

.013��

(.004)

.014��

(.003)

Race=Ethnicity

.431(.824)

.160(.204)

2.085(.827)

.086(1.117)

1.262(.943)

Income=Work

.103(.324)

�.014(.080)

.444(.325)

.367(.441)

.259(.371)

Age

�.742��

(.337)

.000(.083)

�1.001(.339)

�.646(.459)

�.845��

(.386)

PartyIdentification

�.681(.280

�.006(.069)

.069(.281)

.059(.379)

.464(.321)

Education

�.172(.235)

.063(.058)

-.297(.236)

.130(.318)

.409(.269)

Adjusted

R2

.143

.073

.299

.135

.273

Note:Standard

errors

are

inparentheses

N¼77.

� p<.05.��p<.01.

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

6:04

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Student coursework is measured through an interaction variable computed fromthree questions regarding the activities promoting learning as election judges. Theseincluded three questions on the level of importance of three factors in studentlearning—measured on a Likert scale (1¼ not very important to my learning; to6¼ very important to my learning)—those factors being: (1) ‘‘Assigned readings’’;(2) Discussions about class or program topics’’; and (3) ‘‘Lectures in the class orprogram.’’ Thus, the interaction variable is Coursework¼Q1�Q2�Q3 with respectto these questions on learning activities.

Other independent variables that determine political behavior, such asrace=ethnicity, income, age, education, and party identification are included inthe model as control variables. Since the research study is conducted within a lim-ited population—currently enrolled college students at Winona State University—income and education levels are uniquely measured. In terms of income, a level ofwork is used as a pseudo-variable where students are asked whether or not theyare unemployed, work part-time, or work full-time (35þ hours=week) whileenrolled as full-time students. It is hypothesized that the more students work,the higher their income. In terms of education levels, all the studentsare currently enrolled in a four-year institution of higher education. In orderto encourage variation in the education variable, student classification incollege is used. It is hypothesized that the higher the student classification(freshmen, sophomore, junior, senior, graduate student), the higher the level ofeducation.

The results of the determinants of coursework—assigned readings, classdiscussions, and lectures—are in Table 2. The dependent variables in the firstmodel are volunteer activities, GOTV efforts, and political understanding. Whendetermining the effects of coursework on volunteer political activities, such asvolunteering for a campaign and voting, coursework is not statistically significantfrom zero. Students who participated in the civic engagement project as electionjudges in 2008 demonstrated that classroom experience has no statistically signifi-cant effect from zero on whether or not they will engage in political volunteerism,such as campaign work (b¼ .003, p¼ .343). In addition, their classroom experiencehas no statistically significant effect from zero on whether or not they will vote(b¼ .003, p¼ .289). In the measurement of three dependent variables, that is, sur-vey questions regarding political understanding, coursework is statistically signifi-cant in determining political understanding in all three measures. Therefore thehypothesized statistical insignificance of the coursework—classroom interactionand curriculum—on whether or not students participate in volunteer activitiesand GOTV efforts is supported, and the significance of the coursework on politicalunderstanding is supported as well.

In Model 2 in Table 2, the OLS regression model is supported. The courseworkof students serving as election judges was statistically significant from zero in deter-mining their understanding of politics and public service. More specifically, studentunderstanding of political institutions, processes, and policies in coursework—assigned readings, class discussions, and lectures—was statistically significant fromzero (b¼ .013, p¼ .001). In determining students’ in-depth understanding of a parti-cular issue or set of issues, coursework also was statistically significant from zero(b¼ .013, p¼ .003). And finally, in understanding the values and ethical dimensionsinvolved in politics, coursework also was statistically significant from zero (b¼ .014,p¼ .000).

Engaging Student-Citizens in Politics 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

6:04

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Political Efficacy and Student Development

From the results of the first two models found in Table 2, we conclude that courserequirements and expectations have a crucial and necessary relationship to civicengagement activities. The next question, with results in Table 3, concerns the signifi-cance of political science and public administration content in determining theincrease in students’ internal efficacy or the learning effects. It is hypothesized thatpolitical science and public administration students are more likely to make theconnection between course content and their experience as election judges than arestudents not enrolled in these content courses, insofar as political science coursesoften address the issue of the ability of citizens to make a difference in politics. Stu-dents were asked to respond to the question: ‘‘How much effect do election judgeshave in ensuring election administration is fair, accessible, and accurate?’’ Studentsresponded in Likert scale form (1¼ not at all to 6¼ a great deal). It is hypothesizedthat students currently enrolled in political science and public administration coursesat the time of this learning experience demonstrate the crucial link between coursecontent and reflection, whereas students not enrolled in political science and publicadministration courses do not. Again, the feedback loop is closed.

The OLS regression results of student evaluations of their effectiveness as publicservants are listed in Table 3. The population of election judges was sorted into two

Table 3. The determinants of an evaluation of election Judges in coursesof politics or not

Course in PoliticalScience and=or Public

Administration

No Course in PoliticalScience or PublicAdministration

Constant 5.906(1.091)

4.381(1.643)

Coursework: Readings,Lectures, Discussions

.007��

(.003)�.001(.004)

Race=Ethnicity .701(.996)

.744(1.045)

Income=Work �.226(.351)

.471(.476)

Age .132(1.002)

.432(.523)

Party Identification �.224(.244)

�.034(.884)

Education �.481��

(.199)(.199)

Adj R2 .301 �.139N 40 37

�p< 0.05.��p< 0.01.The dependent variable was measured by the survey responses to ‘‘How much

effect do election judges have in ensuring election administration is fair, accessibleand accurate?.’’

74 K. Csajko and K. Lindaman

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

6:04

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

groups: students in one or more political science courses at the time of their publicservice and students not enrolled in any political science course at that time. Studentswere surveyed as to internal political efficacy or their individual evaluation of theirefforts and effectiveness as election judges.14 The findings indicate that the studentsenrolled in at least one political science course agreed that the coursework matteredin evaluating their effectiveness. Students who did not have a political science courseat the time of election judging indicated that their coursework had no statisticallysignificant effect on their evaluation of their effectiveness as election judges.15 It isnot clear, in the latter group of students, what factors did significantly determinetheir evaluations of their effectiveness as election judges.

Students in political science and=or public administration courses experienced astatistically significant effect from zero for coursework—assigned reading, classdiscussions, and lectures—determining their evaluation of their effectiveness. This high-lights the necessity of political science and public administration coursework—whichteaches democracy, citizenship, and other topics relevant to participation—comple-menting student political engagement, if we want students to reflect on that participationand, perhaps, engage in politics again in the future. In fact, over 96% of the students whowere election judges in Fall 2008 expressed their interest in participating as electionjudges again in the future. As mentioned above, future research might follow the activi-ties of students in order to determine their continuing participation in politics. Our find-ings suggest that, in contrast to students taking political science courses, those studentsnot taking such courses in Fall 2008, when they served as election judges, did not experi-ence the course link to their civic engagement. Simply put, these students could notevaluate their experience in terms of democratic and participatory values and themes.

Overall Student Evaluation as Election Judges

The last question concerns student ability to make an overall evaluation of theirexperiences as election judges. When students were asked ‘‘What is your evaluationof the election judges serving in your precinct,’’ 100% of respondents replied with afavorable value of 3–6. A large 56% of respondents answered the question with a‘‘favorable=a great deal’’ reply with a maximum value response of six. No studentsresponded with a moderately or strongly unfavorable reply to the experience. Stu-dents’ positive response to their experience as election judges was also measuredthrough the question ‘‘Would you consider being an election judge again?’’ Nearly97% of participants responded positively that ‘‘yes’’ they would consider it. Thus,we conclude that the experience of students as election judges, according to the stu-dents who participated, was indeed a positive one. Our data show that combinedwith this favorable evaluation by students of the experience, political science andpublic administration course content matter in determining larger learning outcomesof political understanding. Again, the feedback loop for the highest levels of studentdevelopment in understanding themselves and their identities through reflection issupported (Hoy and Meisel 2008).

Conclusion

In this study, we find that student engagement in response to problems citizens facein the public realm—such as access to the vote—when combined with the politicalscience coursework necessary to understanding such political problems results in

Engaging Student-Citizens in Politics 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

6:04

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

an education in democratic citizenship. Future research asks us to evaluate the effectof this education on continued habits of participation in the public realm. This mayindeed provide hope to all who desire to reinforce the participatory aspects of theAmerican political system, against those liberal aspects that threaten to diminishparticipation. Integrating practice and theory, then, promises to introduce studentsto an empowering sense of themselves as citizens capable of acting together withothers in the public realm, rather than as consumers or clients subject to bureaucraticor capitalist forces. As Arendt says, ‘‘And education, too, is where we decide whetherwe love our children enough not to expel them from our world and leave them totheir own devices, nor to strike from their hands their chance of undertakingsomething new . . . but to prepare them in advance for the task of renewing acommon world’’ (Arendt 1987, 196).

Notes

1. In this statement, Euben is paraphrasing Hannah Arendt’s message in ‘‘The Crisis inEducation’’ (Arendt 1987, 173–196). Euben develops his arguments on education in Corrupt-ing Youth. Arendt herself says, ‘‘[In the United States,] education became an instrument ofpolitics, and political activity itself was conceived as a form of education’’ (1994, 176).

2. In 2008, voter turnout was 56.8%, which remained below 1960s turnout rates.However the youth vote, 18- to 29-year-olds, increased their turnout by 4–5 percentage pointsfrom 2004 to levels similar to the 1992 election but remains lower than their older counter-parts. Robert Putnam says, ‘‘many measures of collective participation have fallen sharply,including attending a rally or speech (off 36% between 1973 and 1993), attending a meetingon town or school affairs (off 39%), or working for a political party (off 56%)’’ (Putnam1995, 666). Putnam does define political participation differently than we do, including signinga petition or writing a check; but his examples here do indicate a concern with levels ofparticipation over time.

3. Ellen Wood argues that there is an inverse relationship between a more inclusive andactive citizen body and political power of the demos (See Wood 1994).

4. See Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay (1992, 285).5. Hannah Arendt also discusses participation in relation to the American Revolution

(See Arendt 1986).6. For an idealized version of participation in democratic Athens, see Pericles’ Funeral

Oration, ‘‘we do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds hisown business; we say that he has no business here at all’’ (Thucydides 1985, 147).

7. Students diversified the population of poll workers in Minnesota; the populationbefore had been approximately 73 years old; 81.6% of the WSU students were between the agesof 18 and 24 years old. In addition, WSU students had access to Internet technology. So thecharacteristics of the students recruited met, and even surpassed, the criteria of the U.S.Election Assistance Commission, whose criteria stipulated the recruitment of college students(Lindaman 2009).

8. There seems to be similarities between this and Arendt’s warnings against pity orcompassion in the public realm (See Arendt 1986, 84–88).

9. James Madison discusses the perils of faction in Federalist 51. This also is a theme forMachiavelli; see The Discourses (1970).

10. Of course Wolin and other radical democrats would argue differently (See Wolin1994; also see Wolin 1996).

11. See Beaumont et al. (2006) for an overview of the survey instrument replicated in thisstudy.

12. The same comparison ofmeanswas conductedwith the pre-and posttest data in responsesto possible future activities in which students could ‘‘express their views or take social or politicalaction.’’ However, there was little change to no change in mean values. For example, before theirparticipation as election judges, students responded they would vote in local and national elections(x¼ 5.857, S¼,.479; xþ 4.870, S¼ 1.185) and after their participation as election judges, they

76 K. Csajko and K. Lindaman

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

6:04

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

responded they would vote at the same levels (x¼,5.857, S¼ .479; x¼ 4.870, S¼ 1.185). Thesecomparisons support the tenor of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission in encouraging collegestudents not as voters but as public servants or, more specifically, election judges.

13. Table 1: Model 1: Political Volunteerism¼ b0þ b1(Coursework)þ b2(Race)þb3(Income)þ b4(Age)þ b5(Party ID) þb6(Education)þ e.Table 1: Model 2: Political understanding¼ b0þ b1(Coursework)þ b2(Race)þ b3(Income)þb4(Age)þ b5(Party ID) þb6(Education)þ e.

14. In the postsurvey to measure internal efficacy, students were asked ‘‘How mucheffect do election judges have in ensuring election administration is fair, accessible, andaccurate?’’

15. When the model of internal political efficacy was used with a dummy variable forstudents in political science=public administration courses and those not, there was notstatistical significance.

References

Arendt, Hannah. 1986. On Revolution. New York: Penguin Books.Arendt, Hannah. 1987. Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought.

New York: Penguin Books.Barber, Benjamin. 1996. ‘‘Foundationalism and Democracy.’’ In Democracy and Difference:

Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, pp. 348–360 ed. Seyla Benhabib. Princeton:Princeton University Press.

Beaumont, Elizabeth, Anne Colby, Thomas Ehrlich, and Judith Torney-Purta. 2006.‘‘Promoting Political Competence and Engagement in College Students: An EmpiricalStudy.’’ Journal of Political Science Education 2(3): 249–270.

Delli Corpini, Michael X. and Scott Keefer. 2000. ‘‘What Should be Learned through ServiceLearning?’’ PS: Political Science and Politics 33(Sept.): 635–637.

De Toqueville, Alexis. 1990. Democracy in America, ed. Phillips Bradley. New York: VintageClassics.

Dicklitch, Susan. 2003. ‘‘Real Service ¼ Real Learning: Making Political Science Relevant.’’PS: Political Science and Politics 34(Oct.): 773–776.

Euben, J. Peter. 1994. ‘‘Introduction.’’ In Athenian Political Thought and the Reconstruction ofAmerican Democracy, ed. J. Peter Euben, John R. Wallach, and Josiah Ober. Ithaca andLondon: Cornell University Press.

Foucault, Michel. 1995. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan.New York: Vintage Books.

Freyss, Siegrun Fox. 2006. ‘‘Learning Political Engagement from the Experts: AdvocacyGroups, Neighborhood Councils, and Constituency Service.’’ PS: Political Science andPolitics 40(Jan.): 137–146.

Fung, Archon. 2004. Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton andOxford: Princeton University Press.

Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. 1992. The Federalist. Rutland, VT:Everyman’s Library.

Hepburn, Mary A., Richard G. Niemi, and Chris Chapman. 2000. ‘‘Service Learning inCollege Political Science: Queries and Commentary.’’ PS: Political Science and Politics33(Sept.): 617–622.

Hoy, Ariane and Wayne Meisel. 2008. Civic Engagement at the Center: Building Democracythrough Integrated Cocurricular and Curricular Experiences. Washington, DC:Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Keenan, Alan. 2003. Democracy in Question: Democratic Openness in a Time of PoliticalClosure. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lindaman, Kara L. 2009. ‘‘Developing Young Voters as Public Servants Performance ProgressReport.’’ U.S. Election Assistance Commission EAC-08–001-03, January 31, 2009.

Engaging Student-Citizens in Politics 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

6:04

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Lindaman, Kara L. and Ruth A. Charles. 2008a. ‘‘Developing Young Voters as PublicServants.’’ U.S. Election Assistance Commission, EAC-08-001-03.

Lindaman, Kara and Ruth A. Charles. 2008b. ‘‘Developing Students as Public Servants fromthe Classroom to the Polls.’’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the APSA Teach-ing and Learning Conference, San Jose Marriott, San Jose, California.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1970. The Discourses. Ed. Bernard Crick, Trans. Leslie J. Walker.New York: Penguin Books.

Pateman, Carol. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Pitkin, Hannah. 1982. ‘‘On Participation.’’ Democracy 2(Fall): 43–54.Putnam, Robert D. 1995. ‘‘Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social

Capital in America.’’ PS: Political Science and Politics 28(Dec.): 664–683.Snyder, R. Claire. 2001. ‘‘Should Political Science have a Civic Mission? An Overview of the

Historical Evidence.’’ PS: Political Science and Politics 34(June): 301–305.Thucydides. 1985. History of the Peloponnesian Wars. Trans. Rex Warner. New York:

Penguin Books.Walker, Tobi. 2000. ‘‘The Service=Politics Split: Rethinking Service to Teach Political

Engagement.’’ PS: Political Science and Politics 33(Sept.): 647–649.Wolin, Sheldon S. 1994. ‘‘Norm and Form: The Constitutionalizing of Democracy.’’ In

Athenian Political Thought and the Reconstruction of American Democracy, ed. J. PeterEuben, John R. Wallach, and Josiah Ober. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Wolin, Sheldon. 1996. ‘‘Fugitive Democracy.’’ In Democracy and Difference: Contesting theBoundaries of the Political, pp. 31–46, ed. Seyla Benhabib. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Wood, Ellen Meiksins. 1994. ‘‘Democracy: An Idea of Ambiguous Ancestry.’’ InAthenian Political Thought and the Reconstruction of American Democracy, pp. 59–80,ed. J. Peter Euben, John R. Wallach, and Josiah Ober. Ithaca and London: CornellUniversity Press.

78 K. Csajko and K. Lindaman

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

6:04

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14