View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Building Political Discourse Skills: Students as Teachers

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Building Political Discourse Skills: Students as Teachers
Language: English
Authors: Lynne Chandler Garcia (ORCID 0000-0002-3512-5853), Stacy Ulbig
Source: Journal of Political Science Education. 2024 20(2):218-239.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 22
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: College Students, Political Issues, Teacher Role, Discourse Modes, Persuasive Discourse, Skill Development, Political Science, Peer Relationship, Interpersonal Relationship, Peer Teaching, College Faculty, Perspective Taking, Controversial Issues (Course Content)
DOI: 10.1080/15512169.2023.2267150
ISSN: 1551-2169
1551-2177
Abstract: In a highly polarized political environment, political discourse on divisive topics is all the more important. Heeding the many calls for higher education to teach political discourse skills, this study investigates the impact of political discourse lessons in a college-level, political science classroom. Further, it explores the effectiveness of student-peers as teachers. The study finds peers, compared to faculty, are better able to relate to students, and this strength is ideal for teaching subjects that require social connections such as the active listening and perspective taking techniques. Discussion of sensitive political topics can easily lead to discomfort and uneasiness. Our findings suggest that student learners may be more receptive to peer-leaders than to instructors when it comes to such situations. Further peer-teachers experienced increased comfort levels when involved in controversial political discussions and increased ability to engage in political dialogue.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1423510
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwElSJdd2F0zBezO6HWNQBZHAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCjoWsXmFOEoEBQv0wIBEICBm82PaQ1_I07L0kR2B7JITT4sqyxY43SwPza_vrqGsEUBfaX0FkKeDZxOkHaYVUXElwORSINmVO6xncFwC5AgPQFPcc2hlA2UG7pmUMSnoBl-4DvNhxFMZqFKRR1_kmZq7VBY9mydCoAbXo7CaouQxqYQ7vQrw7WaZDEoFP8twM5arTdrnyIJ1F7vmgkQhBpfWFXyqFXkkuuwtDtw
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0177038491;[15ub]01apr.24;2024May07.05:17;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0177038491-1">Building Political Discourse Skills: Students as Teachers </title> <p>In a highly polarized political environment, political discourse on divisive topics is all the more important. Heeding the many calls for higher education to teach political discourse skills, this study investigates the impact of political discourse lessons in a college-level, political science classroom. Further, it explores the effectiveness of student-peers as teachers. The study finds peers, compared to faculty, are better able to relate to students, and this strength is ideal for teaching subjects that require social connections such as the active listening and perspective taking techniques. Discussion of sensitive political topics can easily lead to discomfort and uneasiness. Our findings suggest that student learners may be more receptive to peer-leaders than to instructors when it comes to such situations. Further peer-teachers experienced increased comfort levels when involved in controversial political discussions and increased ability to engage in political dialogue.</p> <p>Keywords: Political discourse; classroom discussion; student-instructors; peer teaching; critical thinking; perspective taking; active listening</p> <p>The 2022 Campus Expression Survey found that 58.8 percent of college students surveyed were reluctant to engage in classroom discussion concerning politics, race, religion, or other controversial subjects (Zhou and Barbaro [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref1">71</reflink>]). While this was a slight improvement over the 60 percent expressing reluctance in 2021, it is still a troubling trend for political science education where discussion of political topics is a core part of the classroom experience. These findings come on the heels of calls by a number of higher educational organizations and academics to enhance political discourse as part of the college curriculum.</p> <p>However, increasing opportunities for discourse is not enough; individuals participating in discourse require a skillset in order to engage effectively. Engaging in respectful and civil political discussions requires critical thinking, prospective taking, and active listening skills. Possessing these skills helps discussion partners engage in contentious discussions with those holding differing opinions in order to create connections and compromise (Musil [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref2">50</reflink>]). Ultimately, each of these necessary skills helps discussion partners become less defensive, more democratic, and even less prone to authoritarian views (Krause [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref3">38</reflink>]; Rogers and Farson [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref4">59</reflink>]). College courses that emphasize the understanding of diverse viewpoints and focus on authentic expression, active listening, and perspective taking skills as building blocks of discourse can significantly improve these skills among students (Longo, Drury, and Battistoni [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref5">40</reflink>]; McNaughton et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref6">44</reflink>]; Weger, Castle, and Emmett [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref7">69</reflink>]). If we as educators want to promote political discourse both in and out of the classroom, then we must help students develop these skills (Martinson [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref8">43</reflink>]; Redaelii [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref9">57</reflink>];). Educators must incorporate political discourse into their syllabi and offer instruction in these competencies to assist students in enhancing their discourse skills. The challenge is finding meaningful classroom curricula and activities to help students develop these skills.</p> <p>This project responds to challenge to teach political discourse skills by building a method for teaching these skills. Further, we hypothesize that students learning these skills will be especially receptive to lessons taught by peers rather than traditional instructors. We utilize an experimental design structure involving a student research team to see if our civic discourse lessons can effectively impart discourse skills. Further, we test whether using peer-teachers better imparts these skills compared to lessons delivered by professors. Our observations reveal that students do show greater openness to lessons in enhancing discourse skills when they are taught by their peers. Moreover, peer-teachers, by delivering such instruction, also experience a rise in their own confidence to participate in challenging political conversations.</p> <hd id="AN0177038491-2">The importance of teaching the political discourse skillset</hd> <p>Communication is at the heart of a democratic society. While citizens will always disagree on issues, when political discussion becomes hostile and vitriolic, tempers flare, battle lines are drawn, and communication breaks down. Political discussions can quickly become about winners and losers rather than sharing ideas. As a result, people often become unengaged to avoid conflict. Disengagement is dangerous for a democracy because fewer ideas are aired, innovative thoughts become muffled, and the search for the public good is stifled. On the other hand, when citizens are able to engage in political discourse, they are better able to empathize with the views of others and affective polarization decreases (Grönlund et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref10">29</reflink>]; Fishkin et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref11">26</reflink>]). Political discourse is more than just politeness; it involves deliberation, seeking to understand, and the art of listening. These practices can lead to improved conflict-resolution skills, increased engagement in politics, and renewed faith in the democratic process (Delli Carpini, Cook, and Jacobs [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref12">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Students who develop the ability to engage in perspective taking and are able to evaluate alternative perspectives on complex political problems are better prepared to participate in a democracy and are more willing to see the importance of engaging in action to change society (Hurtado et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref13">34</reflink>]). Further Hillygus ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref14">32</reflink>]) and Condon ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>]) demonstrate a correlation between improved verbal skills and voter turnout as well as increased volunteerism in civic organizations while Verba, Schlozman, and Brady (1995) argue that citizens with advanced speaking skills find political activity less daunting and thus are more likely to take part in political meetings. The ability to engage in discourse not only supports political participation, but also has a pedagogical effect as students are better able to clarify and articulate their own views and in turn, are better able to engage in classroom discussion (Levinsen and Yndigegn [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref16">39</reflink>]). In fact, students who engage in specific practice of these skills through political discourse in the classroom often describe themselves as increasingly politically engaged and efficacious (Beaumont et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref17">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Universities are a prime place to teach political discourse skills. Classrooms bring together students of varied racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Further, students are likely to encounter peers with dissimilar viewpoints on a wide range of social and political topics. Scheufele et al. ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref18">61</reflink>]) argue that exposure to contradictory arguments inspires individuals to seek out more information, reevaluate their own viewpoint, and ultimately "enhance[s] political knowledge and understanding" (<reflink idref="bib321" id="ref19">321</reflink>). Political discussions help participants develop sound judgment, engage in perspective taking, and learn to focus on the common good (Miklikowska, Rekker and Kudrnac [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref20">46</reflink>]; Moy and Gastil [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref21">48</reflink>]). The college years offer perhaps the best opportunity for attitude change (see e.g., Dinas [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref22">21</reflink>]; Campbell [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref23">11</reflink>]; Sears and Funk [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref24">60</reflink>]), and college classrooms are the laboratories in which students can learn and practice discourse skills.</p> <p>In a discourse, discussants respond to each other by building upon, refuting, or questioning in an attempt to achieve greater understanding (Strachan [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref25">64</reflink>]). The ability to do so requires perspective taking, empathy, and active listening skills that do not necessarily come naturally to most people (AAC&U [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>]; Hollander [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref27">33</reflink>]). Thus, the need to include these skills as part of curricula is paramount (Weger, Castle, and Emmett, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref28">69</reflink>]; Epley and Caruso [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref29">22</reflink>]; Feshbach and Feshbach [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref30">24</reflink>]; McNaughton et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref31">44</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177038491-3">The value of peer-teaching</hd> <p>Several studies in political science have found value in using peers to motivate behavior such as voter registration (Bennion and Nickerson [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref32">8</reflink>]; Merivaki [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref33">45</reflink>]) and media literacy (Siena and Roman [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref34">62</reflink>]). In the political science classroom, peer evaluations of presentations can increase attentiveness and provide unique perspectives on the presentation experience (Baranowski and Weir [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]) as well as promote improved grading practices (Murphy [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref36">49</reflink>]). Additionally, Burnett et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref37">10</reflink>]) find that peer mentorship can help address isolation among students.</p> <p>Building on these studies, we argue that using peer-teachers holds promise as a way to engage students with their fellows on a level playing field. The concept of peer involvement is familiar as many instructors encourage classmates to review each other's work or lead group discussions. In our study, peer-teaching is elevated to the point that the peers become instructors providing the lecture material as subject matter experts. Peers providing class content are under the direct supervision of a professor but are given considerable leeway to provide their own interpretation of content and examples to help illustrate the material.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref38">1</reflink>] Thus, our approach more deeply embeds peer instruction into the practice of civil discourse skills.</p> <p>The value of students serving as teachers is not necessarily their subject matter expertise; rather, their expertise comes from their status as fellow students who can relate to their cohort going through similar academic experiences (Cook-Sather, Bovill, and Felten, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref39">16</reflink>]; Cox and Sorenson [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref40">17</reflink>]). Because the teachers and students are of the same age cohort, students report that peer-teachers can better understand a student's perspective, and because the two groups share a similar knowledge base, peer-teachers are able to explain difficult concepts with common language and familiar examples that are easier for students to understand (Adler [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>]; Gucciardi, Mach, and Mo [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref42">30</reflink>]). Indeed, students in the classroom express that they are better able to relate to peer-teachers since they are viewed as more accessible than a professor, and they state that working with a peer is less intimidating than interacting with a professor (Wallace [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref43">68</reflink>]). Thus, peer-teaching programs reduce student anxiety and create a more comfortable learning environment (Gucciardi et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref44">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Not only can peer-teaching be beneficial to the student-learners, but it also enhances learning for the peers. In order to teach a subject, instructors must be well versed in the subject. Undergraduate peer-teachers thus have to attain a high level of expertise in their subject areas before entering the classroom. Bargh and Schul ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>]) demonstrate that teaching has cognitive benefits associated with preparing material for instruction and then actively teaching the material through presentation (see also Eby and Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref46">23</reflink>]; Fremouw, Millard, and Donahoe [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref47">27</reflink>]; Karpenko and Schauz [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref48">35</reflink>]). Peer-teachers also improved their public speaking and leadership skills (Gucciardi et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref49">30</reflink>]; Odom, Ho, and Moore [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref50">53</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177038491-4">Students teaching students about discourse</hd> <p>Peer-teaching may be particularly helpful for imparting classroom discussion and political discourse skills such as perspective taking, empathy, and active listening abilities. These same skills are required when individuals seek to discuss contentious or divisive topics such as controversial political subjects (Krause [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref51">38</reflink>]; Rogers and Farson [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref52">59</reflink>]). Individuals with the ability to take another's perspective, empathize, and actively listen are more likely to work through political differences and create connections. Thus, teaching these skills is likely to be a fundamental part of the political science classroom, and peer-teaching may be an opportune pedagogical method.</p> <p>Although Jean Piaget's work involved young learners, his theories of cognitive and social development provide insight for teaching political discourse skills. In cooperative relationships, individuals are on an equal footing with an underlying basis of mutual respect and have the freedom to agree or disagree. Further, Piaget's research determined that discourse among peers promotes perspective taking and reciprocity in which discussants become aware of differences between their own viewpoints and those of others (Piaget, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref53">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref54">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>This process of discovering differing viewpoints, reevaluating one's own ideas, and then creating equilibrium through dialogue is a hallmark of peer learning. Building on Piaget's theories, De Lisi ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref55">18</reflink>]) finds that peer learning helps students negotiate interactions with peers with differing points of view. Peer relationships help interlocutors realize that their own understandings of the world might be overly personal and individualistic. When a peer respectfully contradicts a student's worldview, the student attains a more balanced understanding of an issue (De Lisi [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref56">18</reflink>]). This is especially important for political discussions as exposure to divergent viewpoints can lead to the sharing of the rationales behind their viewpoints and, ultimately, to higher levels of tolerance (Mutz [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref57">51</reflink>]; Mutz and Mondak [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref58">52</reflink>]; Price, Cappella, and Nir [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref59">56</reflink>]; Rhodes [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref60">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>These arguments fit well with contemporary work investigating the sources of political incivility. Experimental work has shown that when adult subjects receive information from an individual offering a first-person perspective, rather than the same information coming from an anonymous member of an out-group, they more readily consider the information and allow it to influence their subsequent attitude formation and behavior (Dimdins, Montgomery, and Austers [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref61">20</reflink>]). Further, when subjects focus on the interests of a perceived political opponent rather their on their own interests, they exhibit more focused attention and increased accuracy in recall of information (Chambers and DeDreu [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref62">12</reflink>]). These findings have led some scholars to recommend teaching people to take a "consider the opposite" approach to information processing when it comes to controversial and emotionally laden topics. These researchers promote practices that involve having participants consider all the alternatives to their own position (Stern and Kleiman [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref63">63</reflink>]), brainstorm counterfactual outcomes to their preexisting beliefs (Fischoff [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref64">25</reflink>]), articulate arguments in support of the opposing position (Kenyon [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref65">36</reflink>]), or "view conflicts though the frame of their adversaries' ideology values" (Chambers, Baron, and Inman [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref66">13</reflink>], 44). These sorts of approaches are thought to attenuate affective information processing and allow for a more cognitively focused approaches that allow better understanding across the political divide (Chambers, Baron, and Inman [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref67">13</reflink>]; Chambers and DeDreu [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref68">12</reflink>]; Dimdins, Montgomery, and Austers [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref69">20</reflink>]; Fischoff [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref70">25</reflink>]; Kenyon [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref71">36</reflink>], 2539; Stern and Kleiman [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref72">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>While such approaches may be appealing, it is important to note that some argue the effects of any of these methods may result in only temporarily increased accuracy and are unlikely to reliably lead to successful de-biasing in the longer term (Kenyon [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref73">36</reflink>]). Problems such as blind spot bias, in which people do not readily recognize their own biases (or assume they have laid them aside when they have not in fact done so), the difficulty of reliably employing de-biasing strategies, and the social pressures to avoid improving the accuracy of out-group perceptions present large obstacles to improving the accuracy of moral misperceptions across political lines. These difficulties have led some to suggest that "[t]here is no realistic hope of cultivating the relevant kinds of reliable belief-forming processes without a vast network of background educational support structures, and probably without a great deal of ongoing social and institutional support as well" (Kenyon [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref74">36</reflink>], 2545–2346). Such accounts emphasize the importance of educational institutions that support the free exchange of ideas, which can not only teach people about the actual differences between those on opposite sides of the political aisle, but also instruct them in methods to successfully engage in de-biasing activities in the face of powerful emotional responses to political phenomena. This is precisely the approach we are suggesting here – teaching college-aged learners the skills to reliably employ conversational strategies, such as perspective-taking and active listening, that trigger more cognitively and less affectively driven information processing.</p> <hd id="AN0177038491-5">Perspective taking</hd> <p>Batson (1997, [5]) defines perspective taking as an "imagine-other" method of understanding how another person views a situation as well as how that person feels in a situation. Perspective taking is essential for political discourse because as Habermas suggests, only by imagining ourselves in another's situation can we understand the other's point of view. Mansbridge contends that empathy "facilitate(s) the creation of common interest" (1983, 285) while Morrell argues that empathy is essential for effective democratic deliberation (Morrell [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref75">47</reflink>]). Krause ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref76">38</reflink>]) explains that not only must discussants understand one another's reasoning surrounding an issue, but they must also understand each other's sentiments so that they can appreciate the deep commitments others have to certain beliefs and issues. Discussants with high levels of empathy are more willing to commit to political deliberation even when they feel they might be on the losing side of a political debate (Morrell [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref77">47</reflink>]). De Lisi ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref78">18</reflink>]) contends that learning how to respect divergent opinions is a critical part of the school experience as the United States becomes increasingly culturally and ethnically heterogeneous.</p> <p>Velez et al. ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref79">66</reflink>]) tested this theory by assessing the psychological effects of the peer-teaching method. In their observations, the peer-taught classroom was "warm and interactive" and the relationships the peer-teachers fostered with students were "active and vibrant." A student commented on the dynamic saying, "I actually like it [peer-teaching] because you feel like you are on the same level as everyone else. You don't feel like you are pressured to hide what you want to say, you can say anything and everyone wants to share" (<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref80">45</reflink>). The observers noted that the peer-teachers were gentler with the students but at the same time were able to have a positive influence over student beliefs. In an instance when a student expressed a view deemed racist, the peer-teachers engaged in an activity to increase understanding and help the student see the problems with that particular view (Velez et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref81">66</reflink>]). The Velez et al. study reinforces De Lisi's ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref82">18</reflink>]) argument that peer-teaching can increase comfort levels in a classroom, lead to a freer exchange of ideas, and reach a deeper level of understanding. Because peers often feel that they are "on the same level," they are more willing to engage in discourse, and they are better able to take the perspective of their peers, which aids in the mutual understanding of contentious topics.</p> <hd id="AN0177038491-6">Active listening</hd> <p>Active listening, during which one listens intently to understand another's point of view, is a hallmark of political discourse. It is an interactive process in which the listener interprets the message of the speaker and then often requires the listener to ask questions and rephrase the message for understanding (Redaelii [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref83">57</reflink>]; Wright [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref84">70</reflink>]). It also requires receptive body language such as acknowledging a speaker through eye contact, head nods, and other affirming body movements (Machin [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref85">41</reflink>]). Each of these components of active listening creates a trusting environment where discussants feel comfortable sharing their views and feel heard within the discourse.</p> <p>Not only do instructors encourage their students to actively listen within the classroom, active listening is part of the skillset required for teaching excellence (Suarez [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref86">65</reflink>], Gordon et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref87">28</reflink>]). This holds true for peer instructors who need to hone their active listening skills as part of their teaching duties. Because peers often feel more comfortable amongst one another, a student may feel more comfortable rephrasing for understanding and asking clarifying questions within a peer-teaching model.</p> <p>To test the importance of active listening among peers engaged in discourse, Berkowitz and Gibbs ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref88">9</reflink>]) analyzed moral discussions. Among the types of interactions they studied were instances in which discussants asked questions or rephrased for understanding, clarified their positions, and extended their reasoning. They found that discussion partners who were able to elevate the quality of moral discussions throughout the course of 20 discourse sessions engaged in these active listening components. Berkowitz and Gibbs conclude that moral discussions require skills [such as active listening] in order to be successful. Thus, there is good reason to believe that the presence of peer-teachers in the classroom can help build better civil discourse skills among student learners.</p> <hd id="AN0177038491-7">Overview of project</hd> <p>We based our study upon research examining the effects of peer-teachers in the field of political science, and more specifically, in the area of political discourse. Our study sought to determine whether peer-teachers could teach the concepts of political discourse to students in a required, introductory level university course, and whether peer-teachers would be more effective compared to professors at facilitating discussion among students of their age cohort. In addition, we sought to determine whether the peer-teachers themselves benefited from improved political discourse skills through their leadership role in the study.</p> <p>Our previous work on this project tested the hypothesis that providing students with instruction on political discourse and its components of active listening and perspective taking would promote more inclusive and productive classroom discussion (Chandler Garcia and Ulbig [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref89">14</reflink>]). In the earlier study, we found that undergraduate students who had explicit training on political discourse techniques were better able to distinguish between dialogue and debate and were able to list more characteristics of political dialogue compared to a control group with no training. Further, the students in classrooms with political discourse training perceived their quality of discussion to be higher than those who were in classrooms that did not receive political discourse training. An independent observer who recorded a greater number of positive indicators of engagement with the experimental group compared to the control group confirmed these results (Chandler Garcia and Ulbig [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref90">14</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177038491-8">Research design</hd> <p>Building on our previous work, we test here the hypothesis that peer-teachers would better impart the experimental civil discourse instruction compared to a non-peer professor. We also tested the hypothesis that peer-teachers would improve their own discourse skills through participation in the study. We began by replicating the experimental conditions from our initial investigation: a non-randomized, quasi-experiment in which some sections of an Introduction to American Government course received intervention lectures and activities covering the definition of political discourse as well as how to engage in active listening and perspective taking during political discussion.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref91">2</reflink>] Students received tips on how to promote more inclusive and open classroom discussion on controversial political topics. Using subjective student reports, the ability of students who were exposed to the intervention lectures and activities to engage in dialogue about controversial topics was then compared to that of students in the control sections. In our earlier study, an assistant professor with a Ph.D. in political science provided the intervention and control lectures as well as conducted an end-of-the-semester survey to compare the intervention and control groups. In the study at hand, we repeated the design substituting peer-teachers chosen from among the upper-level student body as instructors of the political discourse lessons.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref92">3</reflink>]</p> <p>Mimicking the design of our previous experiment, 138 undergraduate students enrolled in a required introductory American government course participated in the current study. The participants were spread across eight sections of the course taught by three different faculty members. Enrollments ranged between 14 and 23 students per section with a typical class size of 17. Using a method of random selection, four of the class sections were designated as intervention sections. The remaining four sections acted as control sections. All courses had the same course objectives, and indicators of outcomes from the classes confirm that the students in all sections were exposed to common course content. Consequently, it was unlikely that any differences across sections were due to idiosyncratic differences in student exposure to different course content.</p> <p>Three faculty members taught the various sections with intervention and control sections split among them. The four intervention sections received political discourse training from student instructors and the four control sections received a lesson on political polarization and the role of the media from the student instructors. The peers were all unpaid volunteers majoring in political science who either had an interest in the subject matter or sought the leadership opportunities and the professional development afforded from being part of an academic research project. Sixteen students volunteered to participate in the project, and their demographic characteristics roughly represented the larger university. The large majority (81%) were juniors while the remainder were seniors, and the peer-teacher group was predominantly male and Anglo. More than two-thirds (69%) of the peer-teacher were male and less than half (31%) were non-Anglos.</p> <p>Peer-teacher training for the project began with Institutional Review Board (IRB) research ethics certification.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref93">4</reflink>] Peer-teachers then received training related directly to the experiment depending on the role(s) they would be playing in the study: political discourse control group lecturer, political discourse intervention group lecturer, classroom peer discussant, or survey administrator. Training in political discourse instruction started with an overview of the components of political discourse and its importance for classroom discussion in political science classes. The peer-teachers selected to give the intervention and control lectures received additional training on how to deliver their respective lectures and conducted several practice lectures. Those who served as classroom peer discussants were trained in techniques to help motivate and moderate classroom discussions of controversial political topics. Finally, those who administered the in-class surveys were given additional instructions on how to administer the survey, including detailed information about how to present the survey to participants and the implementation of proper data collection procedures. Because the peers had their own busy academic schedules, roles were assigned based on availability and free class periods rather than random assignment or by self-selection.</p> <hd id="AN0177038491-9">Procedures</hd> <p>The intervention lessons and control lessons followed a similar pattern but had different content as outlined in Figure 1. The first intervention lecture, led by a student peer teacher, occurred on the ninth class day with a paired activity in which students used children's building blocks to construct a bridge.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref94">5</reflink>] Following the bridge building exercise, students remained in pairs and 1) shared "what it is like to be you in five adjectives;" 2) found three things they have in common; and 3) discussed "anything you'd like about your life story" for three minutes each. At the end of this mini-activity, the students watched a Heineken beer advertisement on YouTube titled "Worlds Apart" that illustrated the activity and demonstrated how shared experiences can bring people together.[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref95">6</reflink>] Discourse was distinguished from debate highlighting that debate has winners and losers whereas discourse seeks a deeper understanding of an issue and builds connections. Students were provided with definitions of perspective taking and active listening, as well as ways to build these skills.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Flow chart of implementation.</p> <p>The lecture then focused on perspective taking and empathy. When faced with a political issue, students were instructed to first consider why they felt a certain way about an issue. Next, students were told to consider the background and experiences of those with whom they were discussing and to think about how these factors might influence the political opinions. They were also encouraged to look for commonalities among interlocutors to help overcome differences. Finally, the lecture encouraged students to tolerate emotion in a political conversation rather than being fearful when a conversation took an emotional turn. When students felt emotional about an issue, they were encouraged to explain why they felt this emotion; likewise, when an interlocutor became emotional, students were encouraged to ask that person why she was emotional.</p> <p>Meanwhile the control group had a more general lecture, again delivered by a student peer-teacher, on political discourse and political polarization. The lecture focused on the importance of Plato's examined life and questioning the status quo. Students were asked to think about the importance of political discourse for the political figures that had been discussed in prior class sessions: the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King Jr. The control sections were provided with the definition of ideological silos and echo chambers along with Pew data (2014) demonstrating each concept. The class concluded with a discussion of the media's role in political discourse and censorship. The control sections did not feature any discussion of the difference between debate and discourse, nor did they feature any methods for building active listening and perspective taking skills.</p> <p>The second intervention lecture in the treatment sections took place two class meetings later and focused on active listening.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref96">7</reflink>] Students learned techniques such as rephrasing and asking clarifying questions in order to fully understand what the other person was saying. The peer-led instruction emphasized that tough conversations are difficult but they are sometimes necessary in the quest for truth and understanding. After the lecture on active listening, students engaged in a discussion of Frederick Douglass's speech "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July," which was the assigned reading for that day. Students were encouraged to practice active listening and perspective taking techniques.</p> <p>At the second intervention point, the control sections did not receive any instruction on political discourse. Instead, they read and discussed Frederick Douglass's "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July" from a historical perspective. Peer-teachers began the class with Douglass' biography and an overview of his political career. The peer-teachers then led the students through a discussion of the historical context of the speech and asked students to share quotes from the speech that the students found especially important. The class did not discuss how the speech relates to political discourse nor were they provided any tips for fostering active political discussion.</p> <p>Near the end of the semester (during the 34<sups>th</sups> class meeting), students in all sections completed a questionnaire that asked them to list differences between debate and discourse and measured their understanding of the techniques associated with active listening and perspective taking. It also gauged opinions on the quality of classroom discussion in their particular class and queried the behaviors exhibited by students regarding active listening and perspective taking.</p> <hd id="AN0177038491-10">Analyses and findings</hd> <p>To assess the effects that peer-led instruction in political discourse techniques might have had on participants' abilities to understand and engage in productive discourse, we conducted two sets of analyses. First, we compared outcomes for the faculty-led and peer-led sections of the course, finding that students in peer-led sections were better able to describe political dialogue and debate and could list more political discourse techniques than the student participants in faculty-led sections of the course. Second, we evaluated gains in political discourse ability made by the group of student-researchers who took part in the study. We discovered that involvement as a peer-teacher resulted in gains to the peer-teachers' comfort level when involved in controversial political discussions and increased their ability to engage in political dialogue.</p> <hd id="AN0177038491-11">Student-learner findings</hd> <p>Our first finding was that the intervention helped student-learners understand the differences between political dialogue and debate. We asked students to "describe [their] understanding of the difference between a political debate and political dialogue by listing characteristics of each" and encouraged them to "list as many [differences] as possible." We coded their responses on an 11-point scale ranging from zero to ten, with zero indicating no recollection of any characteristics and 10 indicating listing at least 10 characteristics explicitly taught in the intervention. We performed a series of independent samples comparison of means tests to assess the differences between control and intervention groups' ability to differentiate between debate and dialogue. The results corroborate what our previous study showed—students receiving training in political discourse techniques, whether from a professor or peer-teacher, were better able to describe debate and dialogue and to list discourse techniques than those who did not receive such training (Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1. Comparison of student characteristics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Class Section</td><td>Group Designation</td><td>Enrollment</td><td>Mean Age</td><td>Mean GPA</td><td>% Male</td><td>% Anglo</td><td>% African-American</td><td>% Hispanic</td><td>% Asian</td><td>% Other Race/ Ethnicity</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Section 1 (Instructor 1)</td><td>Control</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">3.00</td><td char=".">58.8</td><td char=".">70.6</td><td char=".">5.9</td><td char=".">16.7</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">17.6</td></tr><tr><td>Section 2 (Instructor 1)</td><td>Intervention</td><td char=".">16</td><td char=".">18.5</td><td char=".">3.06</td><td char=".">70.0</td><td char=".">75.0</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">6.3</td><td char=".">15.0</td><td char=".">0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Section 3 (Instructor 1)</td><td>Intervention</td><td char=".">23</td><td char=".">18.5</td><td char=".">2.99</td><td char=".">71.4</td><td char=".">76.2</td><td char=".">4.8</td><td char=".">8.1</td><td char=".">9.5</td><td char=".">4.8</td></tr><tr><td>Section 4 (Instructor 2)</td><td>Control</td><td char=".">14</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">2.90</td><td char=".">60.0</td><td char=".">60.0</td><td char=".">13.3</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">6.7</td><td char=".">20.0</td></tr><tr><td>Section 5 (Instructor 2)</td><td>Intervention</td><td char=".">16</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">3.01</td><td char=".">62.5</td><td char=".">68.8</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">12.5</td><td char=".">12.5</td><td char=".">6.3</td></tr><tr><td>Section 6 (Instructor 2)</td><td>Control</td><td char=".">14</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">3.22</td><td char=".">76.9</td><td char=".">84.6</td><td char=".">7.7</td><td char=".">7.7</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Section 7 (Instructor 3)</td><td>Control</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">3.72</td><td char=".">55.6</td><td char=".">72.2</td><td char=".">5.6</td><td char=".">16.7</td><td char=".">5.6</td><td char=".">0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Section 8 (Instructor 3)</td><td>Intervention</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">3.69</td><td char=".">87.5</td><td char=".">81.3</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">6.3</td><td char=".">12.5</td><td char=".">0.0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Notes</emph>: Sections 7 and 8 were Scholars sections of the class. "Male" refers to biological sex, not gender identity. "Other Race/Ethnicity" includes those participants identifying as Pacific Islander, American Indian, and Unreported. Independent samples comparison of means tests show that there are no statistically significant differences between the control and intervention groups on any of these characteristics.</p> <p>Comparing the results from the faculty-led to the peer-led sections, we found that students in the peer-led groups showed much higher retention of the political discourse material. As Table 2 demonstrates, students in the intervention group sections that were peer-led showed greater ability to describe debate and dialogue than those in the faculty-led sections. When describing dialogue and debate, peer-led students scored more than twice as high (4.25) as faculty-led students (1.52) on the eleven-point scale. Peer-led students were able to list about 1.26 more of the five techniques learned than students in the faculty-led sections. This amounts to being able to list about 25% more techniques (i.e., peer-led students performed about 25% better on this recall task).</p> <p>Table 2. Student-learner results: faculty-led vs. peer-led.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Control Group</td><td>Treatment Group</td></tr><tr><td /><td><italic>Instructor-Led</italic></td><td><italic>Peer- Led</italic></td><td><italic>Diff Sig.</italic></td><td><italic>Instructor -Led</italic></td><td><italic>Peer-Led</italic></td><td><italic>Diff Sig.</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Ability to Describe Debate</td><td char=".">0.761</td><td char=".">1.352</td><td char=".">0.591***</td><td char=".">0.789</td><td char=".">1.944</td><td char=".">1.156***</td></tr><tr><td>Ability to Describe Dialogue</td><td char=".">0.672</td><td char=".">1.453</td><td char=".">0.781***</td><td char=".">0.810</td><td char=".">2.306</td><td char=".">1.475***</td></tr><tr><td>Ability to Describe Debate & Dialogue</td><td char=".">1.433</td><td char=".">2.778</td><td char=".">1.345***</td><td char=".">1.620</td><td char=".">4.250</td><td char=".">2.630***</td></tr><tr><td>Number of Ciril Discourse Techniques Listed</td><td char=".">1.403</td><td char=".">2.226</td><td char=".">0.823***</td><td char=".">1.521</td><td char=".">2.778</td><td char=".">1.257***</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>These findings support the contention that peer-led instruction has positive effects on student-learners. In particular, previous findings that students reported peer-teaching environments as less intimidating (Wallace [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref97">68</reflink>]) and more comfortable (Gucciardi et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref98">30</reflink>]) may be especially relevant in the current context. After all, the discussion of controversial, and potentially sensitive, political topics can easily lead to discomfort and unease. Our findings suggest that student learners may be more receptive to peers than to professors when it comes to such situations.</p> <p>In the post-test surveys, we also asked students to rate, on a ten-point scale, their perceptions of the overall quality of discussions throughout the entire semester. They were instructed to "take into account how many classmates [were] actively participating, willingness to engage on controversial topics, and respect within the classroom." Across all sections, participants reported a higher quality of discussion at the end of the semester compared to the beginning, which is likely due to the natural improvements in discussion that occur during the semester as students become more familiar with each other and the instructor. Of more direct concern to the present study is our hypothesis that students in the treatment group would show greater gains in quality of discussion ratings than those in the control group. The pattern of results presented in Figure 2 does not bear out this hypothesis. Differences in discussion quality gains between the peer-led and instructor-led groups were statistically insignificant.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Student-learner results: perceived quality of instruction. Note: Scores are difference in mean quality ratings at the end of the semester as compared to the beginning. Positive scores indicate increases in perceived quality of classroom discussion.</p> <p>Interestingly, however, the treatment group and control groups showed different patterns of results. Student learners in the treatment group sections led by their peers reported perceiving more improvement in classroom discussion quality than those in sections led by instructors. In contrast, among control group subjects, those in sections led by instructors reported more improved classroom discussions than their counterparts in peer-led sections. These findings might be indicative of an interactive effect of the type of instruction leader (peer vs. instructor) and the content of the material being taught. Perhaps students paid extra attention to the political discourse lessons presented by peer-teachers because they found the content especially relatable with their peers. In contrast, when peers delivered more "normal" content, the students did not relate in the same way and thus did not find their discussions to be more stimulating.</p> <p>Taken together our results suggest that there might be a disconnect between an abstract understanding of the content of and skills that support more productive conversations and the use of those skills in a concrete situation. This finding corroborates our earlier findings that teaching students to cognitively understand a behavior such as political discourse may be easier than teaching students to actually practice this behavior (Chandler Garcia and Ulbig, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref99">14</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177038491-12">Peer-teacher findings</hd> <p>We were also interested in any effects participation in the study might have had on the peer-teachers. Peer researchers completed a survey with Likert questions on a 5-point scale indicating the extent to which they agreed with statements concerning the project. Only 10 of the 11 peer researchers completed the survey, so our sample (and population) size is small, and thus all are findings with regard to student researchers are highly tentative. However, the data we gathered suggests positive effects for peers. Figure 3 summarizes the results.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Peer-leader reactions to study participation.</p> <p>The first question queried whether peers gained a better understanding of the academic outcomes of the project. We asked peer-teachers whether "[p]articipation in this project increased [their] subject matter expertise in political discourse." Nine peer-teachers agreed or strongly agreed with the statement while only one peer answered "neither agree nor disagree." Thus, from their self-assessments, it seems that peers gained a greater cognitive mastery of the material presented in the experiment. Likewise, nine of the ten peer-teachers reported increased abilities to teach and explain concepts to others after taking part in the study. Finally, we also observed that being involved in the study helped students feel a stronger connection to the department of their chosen major. Almost all (9 of 10) of the peer-teachers reported that taking part in the study helped them feel more included in the political science department. Thus, our findings suggest that these students felt that their experiences as peer-teachers served them well when it came to their personal skill sets. There is also some evidence that involving students as peer-teachers can result in academic community building.</p> <p>We then queried peer-teachers to see if participation in the project had an effect on behavior associated with participation in political discourse. Table 3 details a series of questions asked about increases in comfort level concerning political discourse and their ability to employ discourse techniques. As we expected, we found overall increases in comfort level and ability. We then further broke down the results by role to determine if a peer's role made a difference in ability to participate in discourse.</p> <p>Table 3. Necessary and sufficient conditions for peer-leader political discourse outcomes.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Control Lecturer</td><td>Treatment Lecturer</td><td>Discussion Supporter</td><td>Observer</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>"On a scale from <bold>1</bold> to <bold>10, 1</bold> being the lowest, please rate your comfort level in discussing controversial political topics [before/after] the project." (measured as change in level; post level - pre-level) "My participation in this project ..." ... "increased my comfort level in expressing my opinions during discussion." ... "increased my ability to make sure I understood where another person was coming from before speaking when I engaged in the discussion." ... "increased my ability to build upon the contribution of fellow discussion interlocutors." ... "increased my comfort level in participating in controverial 'hot button' discussion in class." ... "increased my comfort level in expressing emotion during discussion." ... "increased my comfort level when my classmates expressed emotion during discussion." ... "increased my awareness of my body language that demonstrates active listening such as looking at the classmate speaking, head nodding, sifting up in our chairs." ... "increased my ability to rephrase comments or understanding or ask clarifying questions in order to better understand another's point of view." ... "increased my ability to ask clarifying questions in order to better understand a classmate's point of view."</td><td>0.250 0.583 0.783 0.750 0.600 0.417 0.633 0.717 0.783 0.783</td><td>0.375 0.650 0.825 0.725 0.675 0.575 0.675 0.750 0.625 0.825</td><td>0.500 0.620 0.840 0.760 0.640 0.420 0.740 0.620 0.700 0.840</td><td>0.125 0.550 0.762 0.700 0.550 0.562 0.637 0.713 0.675 0.762</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Notes</emph>: cell entries are consistency scores from Qualitative Comparative Analyses (QCA) performed in STATA.</p> <p>We employed qualitative comparative analyses (QCA) performed in STATA SE. 15.1. QCA is an analytic strategy that "employs Boolean logic to examine the relationship between an outcome and all binary combinations of multiple predictors" (Longest and Vaisay 2008, 79). QCA offers the advantage of allowing "the researcher to find distinct combinations of causal variables that, in turn, suggest different theoretical pathways to given outcomes" (<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref100">79</reflink>). The analytic technique is "especially appropriate for testing models ... that involve a multitude of 'interacting' factors" (<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref101">80</reflink>). QCA was appropriate for our peer-researcher data because political discourse outcomes (gains in comfort levels and abilities) that were being theoretically predicted by a series of binary predictors (roles played by peer-researchers) that can be interacting (i.e., when a peer-researcher played more than one role).</p> <p>The QCA results on Table 3 are "consistency scores," the simplest QCA analysis. These scores indicate the degree to which the IV (role played by peer-researcher) plays in predicting each political discourse outcome. Higher values indicate stronger predictive ability. Reading across the rows, we can see the relative predictive power of each of the separate peer-teacher roles.</p> <p>Ceteris paribus, the role of peer discussant most strongly relates to gains in comfort levels over the course of the study. This is as expected since the role required a very strong understanding of the political discourse material as well as the ability to put these techniques into practice as a role model for students. Serving as an intervention lecturer was the strongest predictor of (a) increased comfort in expressing opinions and (b) emotions, (c) participating in 'hot button' discussions, and (d) being aware of body language that demonstrates active listening. Because the intervention session focused on these factors, it is not surprising that lecturers providing the treatment internalized the material. Although the control lecturers did not focus heavily on political discourse techniques, we found that serving in this role was the strongest predictor of increased ability to rephrase comments for better understanding.</p> <p>Peer discussants had the duty of modeling discourse techniques, and thus it is unsurprising that this role had numerous effects. Serving as only a peer discussant was the strongest predictor of (a) increased comfort in discussing controversial political topics; (b) ability to assure understanding; (c) ability to build on contributions of others; (d) increased comfort with emotional expressions of others; and (e) increased ability to ask clarifying questions.</p> <hd id="AN0177038491-13">Interactions among the roles</hd> <p>Because some peer-researchers had multiple roles within the project, we needed to determine how the various types of participation affected their comfort levels and ability to engage in discussion. For instance, a peer-researcher who served as both an instructor in one section and then a discussion leader in another section would likely have been impacted more than a peer-researcher whose only role was to administer surveys. Each peer-researcher was coded as a 1 if he/she served in a role or 0 if he/she did not serve in that role. A peer-researcher with a rating of four served in four roles, a peer-researcher with a three served in three roles, and so on. Thus, we can compare a peer-researcher who had many roles to one who had just one role. As Table 4 demonstrates, the overall level of participation in the project seems to have played little role in boosting peer-researchers' comfort with controversial discussions.</p> <p>Table 4. Peer-leader roles and overall discussion comfort level.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Number of Peer-Leaders</td><td>Pre-Project Comfort Level</td><td>Post-Project Comfort Level</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>All Roles</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">8.286</td><td char=".">8.857</td></tr><tr><td>Lecturer - Intervention</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">8.500</td><td char=".">9.250</td></tr><tr><td>Lecturer - Control</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">8.500</td><td char=".">9.000</td></tr><tr><td>Peer Discussant</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">8.000</td><td char=".">9.000</td></tr><tr><td>Survey Administrator</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">7.500</td><td char=".">8.000</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Notes</emph>: Cell entries are mean reported discussion comfort levels and post-project/pre-project difference in reported comfort levels. In total there were 14 different combinations of roles that each peer-leader could have played. Statistical significance is not reported given the very small population of 14 peer-leaders.</p> <p>To further explore the ways in which serving as a peer-researcher might affect students' abilities to engage in meaningful discussion, we compared the relationship between the different roles (or combinations of roles) that peer-researchers played and pre-study/post-study changes in their comfort levels while discussing controversial topics. Considering first all peer-researchers regardless of which role(s) they played, we observed an increase of slightly more than ½ of one point (on the ten-point scale) in reported discussion comfort levels (see first row of Table 4). More substantial increases in comfort levels were shown for those peer-researchers who served as intervention section lecturers, control section lecturers, and peer discussants. Control section lecturers showed about one-half a point increase, intervention section lecturers exhibited about ¾ of a point increase, and discussion supporters reported a full point increase (all on the 10-point comfort scale). Although these results are positive, we must exercise caution when interpreting the increases given that our peer-research pool was only 14 individuals.</p> <p>Given the type of cognitive engagement required to perform as a peer discussant or intervention lecturer, it is perhaps not surprising that the strongest effects on peer-researchers' discussion comfort are associated with these two roles. Engaging in classroom discussions while modeling political discourse behavior requires the peer-teacher to practice the habits that help build civil discussion skills in real-time conditions. Similarly, learning about the components of political discourse as well as the behaviors associated with it well enough to provide an interactive lecture requires that the peer-teacher be well versed and drilled in political discourse techniques.</p> <p>Peer-researchers had an opportunity to comment on their Likert survey responses, and these remarks largely confirmed the results above. One peer-researcher commented, "I always tried to avoid such topics with family and friends because I told myself I would never change them and it would only lead to stalemates between us. [B]ut learning the proper methods of civil discourse gave me some tools I still use to challenge ideas not people, present countering logic, and listen to learn not to refute."</p> <p>Most peer-researchers noted improvements in their abilities to perspective take and actively listen such as a respondent who commented, "I know better how to listen and get a feel for their stance" and "taking what they say and building off of that is a new ability of mine." At the same time, expressing emotion and accepting the emotions from others remained difficult as one peer-researcher stated, "I'm still wary to use emotion due to how that can be taken/conveyed."</p> <p>Peer-researchers noted their increased confidence in discussing controversial political topics, but many of them stated that this increased confidence mostly applied to classroom settings rather than day-to-day interactions with friends and peers on campus where they felt that affective polarization was more evident. As one respondent noted, "While I feel better equipped, I still worry about the potential responses [peers] outside the classroom may have towards me socially."</p> <hd id="AN0177038491-14">Summary of findings</hd> <p>Our results confirm studies suggesting that peer-teaching is a valuable pedagogical method for both student learners and student peer-teachers. Peers, compared to faculty, are better able to relate to students, and this strength is ideal for teaching subjects that require social connections such as active listening and perspective taking techniques. Our results suggest that compared to faculty, peer-teachers were able to teach the abstract ideas of political discourse skills to their undergraduate peers. At the same time, however, we did not find that the student-learners perceived any greater improvement in classroom discussions when they were instructed by their peers rather than faculty instructors. Perhaps as others have suggested, teaching students to cognitively understand a behavior is often easier than teaching students to actually practice the behavior (Knobloch and Gastil [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref102">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Further, as predicted by the existing literature concerning peer-instruction, peer-teachers in our study also gained knowledge and experience from the project. Peer-teachers reported gains in their expertise about political discourse and were able to teach and explain concepts to others. In addition, they also reported feeling more included in the political science department that was their academic home. We would reiterate, however, that there were only 10 peer-teachers in our study so our findings related to peer researcher gains are tenuous. Because our findings concerning the effect on peer-teachers are limited due to the small number of participants, we would like to continue to replicate this project in the future to determine if our positive trends continue. Additionally, peer-teachers vary in their teaching abilities (just as faculty members vary), and a larger study with more peer teachers and larger control and experiments groups would be needed to confirm our results.</p> <p>A related shortcoming of our study is that results may be both faculty member and peer-teacher dependent. Both faculty members who led this project study affective polarization and civil discourse, and both are committed to improving classroom discussion. This passion and experience may have biased our results, and we did see slightly larger positive results in the classrooms led by the faculty member who had been working on this project for some time. At the same time, the study is fairly easy to replicate and does not require extensive expertise in political discourse or communication. Therefore, if we were able to replicate this study with more faculty members, we believe we would see similar results. Likewise, peer-instructors can vary in their ability to teach and relate to fellow students. We did not chose peer-instructors based on grades or proven leadership ability. Thus, it is likely that our results could be replicated, but as stated above, a larger study is needed to confirm this hypothesis.</p> <p>Despite these limitations, we are encouraged by our findings. Our results lead us to believe that a relatively simple and short intervention can affect cognitive understanding of discourse among a group of student learners, and that student peer-teachers can experience important gains as well. In future projects, we would also like to explore ways in which these teaching techniques can be translated into an online environment.</p> <hd id="AN0177038491-15">Conclusions</hd> <p>This project explored methods to impart discourse skills such as perspective taking, active listening, and critical thinking with an aim to facilitate civil and respectful political discourse. In an increasingly polarized political landscape, where citizens are reluctant to engage in discussion of hot political topics, these skills are critically important. Using an experimental design structure, we discovered that lessons focused on teaching these skills yield positive outcomes. Moreover, peers, compared to faculty, are better able to relate to students, and this strength is ideal for teaching subjects that require social connections such as the active listening and perspective taking techniques. Finally, peer-teachers reported increased comfort levels when involved in controversial political discussions and increased ability to engage in political dialogue.</p> <p>Our findings contribute to addressing the need for college students to develop discourse skills in order to participate in a political realm permeated by incivility and an unwillingness to engage in dialogue. Further, our results demonstrate individuals who can relate and empathize with a young adult population are adept at imparting these skills. This research fits well with our approach to building political discourse skills, and bodes well for the possibility that political discourse training in the classroom could serve as an effective weapon to counter rising incivility levels in American politics.</p> <ref id="AN0177038491-16"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref38" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Peer teachers in our study were required that to complete IRB training for human subjects and went through rigorous training to become qualified as peer-teachers (see Appendices A and B, https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2023.2267150). While in many settings, peer-teachers also take part in assessment activities, our study limited peer teachers to providing classroom lectures on content.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref26" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> This study received all required Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals under IRB number FAC20180106E.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref45" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Non-peer, faculty members continued to teach all other course lessons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref35" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> See Appendix A (https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2023.2267150) for details on research methodology and Appendix B (https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2023.2267150) for details on student research training.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref94" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> See Appendix A (https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2023.2267150) for details.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref95" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> The video is available online: https://<ulink href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo2YF5n%5fD04">www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo2YF5n%5fD04</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref17" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> See Appendix A (https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2023.2267150) for details.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref32" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2023.2267150.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0177038491-17"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Adler, P. 1993. " Personalizing Mass Education: The Assistant Teaching Assistant (ATA) Program." Teaching Sociology 21 (2): 172 – 176. doi: 10.2307/1318639.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). 2012. The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. A Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracy's Future. Washington, DC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bargh, J. A., and Y. Schul. 1980. " On the Cognitive Benefits of Teaching." Journal of Educational Psychology 72 (5): 593 – 604. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.72.5.593.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baranowski, Michael, and Kimberly A. Weir. 2011. " Peer Evaluation in the Political Science Classroom." PS: Political Science & Politics 44 (4): 805 – 811. doi: 10.1017/S1049096511001302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Batson, C. D. 2009. " These Things Called Empathy: Eight Related But Distinct Phenomena." In Social Neuroscience. The Social Neuroscience of Empathy, eds. J. Decety and W. Ickes. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 3 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Batson, C. Daniel, Shannon Early, and Giovanni Salvarani. 1997. " Two Forms of Perspective Taking: Imagining How Another Feels and Imagining How You Would Feel." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23 (7): 751 – 758. doi: 10.1177/0146167297237008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beaumont, Elizabeth, Anne Colby, Thomas Ehrlich, and Judith Torney-Purta. 2006. " Promoting Political Competence and Engagement in College Students: An Empirical Study." Journal of Political Science Education 2 (3): 249 – 270. doi: 10.1080/15512160600840467.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bennion, Elizabeth A., and David W. Nickerson. 2016. " I Will Register and Vote, If You Teach Me How: A Field Experiment Testing Voter Registration in College Classrooms." PS: Political Science & Politics 49 (04): 867 – 871. doi: 10.1017/S1049096516001360.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref88" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Berkowitz, M.W., and J.C. Gibbs. 1983. " Measuring the Developmental Features of Moral Discussion." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 29 (4): 399 – 410.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burnett, John, Stephanie L. DeMora, Michelangelo Landgrave, Christian Lindke, and Adriana Ninci. 2022. " How Can We Address Professional Isolation among Traditionally Underrepresented Students? The Importance of Peer Mentorship." Journal of Political Science Education 18 (3): 425 – 429. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2022.2053694.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell, D. E. 2008. " Voice in the Classroom: How an Open Classroom Climate Fosters Political Engagement among Adolescents." Political Behavior 30 (4): 437 – 454. doi: 10.1007/s11109-008-9063-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chambers, John R., and Carsten K. W. DeDreu. 2014. " Egocentrism Drives Misunderstanding in Conflict and Negotiation." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 51 : 15 – 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.11.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chambers, John R., Robert S. Baron, and Mary L. Inman. 2006. " Misperceptions in Intergroup Conflict: Disagreeing about What We Disagree About." Psychological Science 17 (1): 38 – 45. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01662.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chandler Garcia, Lynne, and, Stacy Ulbig. 2020. " Dialogue Not Debate: Building Political Discourse Skills in Future Generations of American Citizens." The Journal of General Education 69 (3–4): 154 – 178. doi: 10.5325/jgeneeduc.69.3-4.0154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Condon, M. 2015. " Voice Lessons: Rethinking the Relationship between Education and Political Participation." Political Behavior 37 (4): 819 – 843. doi: 10.1007/s11109-015-9301-0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook-Sather, A., C. Bovill, and P. Felten. 2014. Engaging Students as Partners in Teaching and Learning: A Guide for Faculty. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cox, M., and D.L. Sorenson. 2000. " Student Collaboration in Faculty Development: Connecting Directly to the Learning Revolution." To Improve the Academy 18 (1): 97 – 127. doi: 10.1002/j.2334-4822.2000.tb00365.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Lisi, R. 2002. " From Marbles to Instant Messenger™: Implications of Piaget's Ideas about Peer Learning." Theory into Practice 41 (1): 5 – 12. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4101_2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delli Carpini, M. X., F. L. Cook, and L. R. Jacobs. 2004. " Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement." Annual Review of Political Science 7 (1): 315 – 344. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dimdins, G., H. Montgomery, and I. Austers. 2005. " Differentiating Explanations of Attitude Consistent Behavior: The Role of Perspectives and Mode of Perspective Taking." Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 46 (2): 97 – 106. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2005.00440.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dinas, E. 2013. " Opening 'Openness to Change': Political Events and the Increased Sensitivity of Young Adults." Political Research Quarterly 66 (4): 868 – 882. doi: 10.1177/1065912913475874.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Epley, N., and E. Caruso. 2008. " Perspective taking: Misstepping into others' shoes." In Handbook of imagination and mental simulation, eds. K. D. Markham, W. M.P. Klein, and J. A Shur. New York, NY : Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eby, K., and P. Gilbert. 2000. " Implementing New Pedagogical Models: Using Undergraduate Teaching Assistants in a Violence and Gender Learning Community." Innovative Higher Education 25 (2): 127 – 142. doi: 10.1023/A:1007576923195.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feshbach, N. D., and S. Feshbach. 2009. " Empathy and education." In The Social Neuroscience of Empathy., eds. J. Decety and W. J. Ickes. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fischoff, Baruch. 1982. " Debiasing." In Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. eds. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fishkin, J., A. Siu, L. Diamond, and N. Bradburn. 2021. " Is Deliberation an Antidote to Extreme Partisan Polarization? Reflections on 'America in One Room." American Political Science Review 115 (4): 1464 – 1481. doi: 10.1017/S0003055421000642.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fremouw, W., J. Millard, and J. Donahoe. 1979. " Learning-Through-Teaching: Knowledge Changes in Undergraduate Teaching Assistants." Teaching of Psychology 6 (1): 30 – 32. doi: 10.1207/s15328023top0601_10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gordon, J., P. Henry, and M. Dempster. 2013. " Undergraduate Teaching Assistants: A Learner-Centered Model for Enhancing Student Engagement in the First-Year Experience." International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 25 (1): 103 – 109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grönlund, Kimmo, Kaisa Herne, and Maija Setälä. 2017. " Empathy in a Citizen Deliberation Experiment." Scandinavian Political Studies 40 (4): 457 – 480. doi: 10.1111/1467-9477.12103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gucciardi, E., C. Mach, and S. Mo. 2016. " Student-Faculty Team Teaching – a Collaborative Learning Approach." Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 24 (5): 441 – 455. doi: 10.1080/13611267.2016.1270899.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jurgen, Habermas. 1981. Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Cambridge : Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hillygus, D. S. 2005. " The Missing Link: Exploring the Relationship between Higher Education and Political Behavior." Political Behavior 27 (1): 25 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hollander, J. 2002. " Learning to Discuss: Strategies for Improving the Quality of Class Discussion." Teaching Sociology 30 (3): 317 – 327. doi: 10.2307/3211480.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hurtado, S., M. Engberg, L. Ponjuan, and L. Landreman. 2002. " Students' Precollege Preparation for Participation in a Diverse Democracy." Research in Higher Education 43 (2): 163 – 186. doi: 10.1023/A:1014467607253.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karpenko, L., and S. Schauz. 2017. " Thinking as a Student: Stimulating Peer Education with an Undergraduate Teaching Assistant in the Humanities Classroom." Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 17 (3): 124 – 135. doi: 10.14434/josotl.v17i3.22158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenyon, Tim. 2014. " False Polarization: Debiasing as Applied Social Epistemology." Synthese 191 (11): 2529 – 2547. doi: 10.1007/s11229-014-0438-x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knobloch, K. R., and J. Gastil. 2015. " Civic (Re)Socialization: The Educative Effects of Deliberative Participation." Politics 35 (2): 183 – 200. doi: 10.1111/1467-9256.12069.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krause, S. 2008. Civil Passions. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levinsen, K., and C. Yndigegn. 2015. " Political Discussions with Family and Friends: Exploring the Impact of Political Distance." The Sociological Review 63 (2_Suppl): 72 – 91. doi: 10.1111/1467-954X.12263.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longo, N.V., C. Drury, and R.M. Battistoni. 2006. " Catalyzing Political Engagement: Lessons for Civic Educators from the Voice of Students." Journal of Political Science Education 2 (3): 313 – 329. doi: 10.1080/15512160600840483.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Machin, Amanda. 2015. " Deliberating Bodies: Democracy, Identification, and Embodiment." Democratic Theory 2 (1): 42 – 62. doi: 10.3167/dt.2015.020104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jane, Mansbridge. 1983. Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martinson, D. L. 2003. " Defeating the 'Hidden Curriculum' Teaching Political Participation in the Social Studies Classroom," The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 76 (3): 132 – 135. doi: 10.1080/00098650309601988.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNaughton, D., D. Hamlin, J. McCarthy, D. Head-Reeves, and M. Schreiner. 2008. " Learning to Listen: Teaching an Active Listening Strategy to Preservice Education Professionals." Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 27 (4): 223 – 231. doi: 10.1177/0271121407311241.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merivaki, Thessalia. 2022. " Making National Voter Registration Day a Course Assignment." PS: Political Science & Politics 55 (2): 387 – 389. doi: 10.1017/S1049096521001657.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miklikowska, M.,. R. Rekker, and A. Kudrnac. 2022. " A Little More Conversation a Little Less Prejudice: The Role of Classroom Political Discussions for Youth's Attitudes toward Immigrants." Political Communication Online 39 (3): 405 – 427. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2022.2032502.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrell, M. E. 2010. Empathy and Democracy: Feeling, Thinking, and Deliberation. University Park, PA : Pennsylvania State Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moy, P., and J. Gastil. 2006. " Predicting Deliberative Conversation: The Impact of Discussion Networks, Media Use, and Political Cognitions." Political Communication 23 (4): 443 – 460. doi: 10.1080/10584600600977003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, Michael P. A. 2022. " Evaluating Simultaneous Group Activities through Self- and Peer-Assessment: Addressing the 'Evaluation Challenge' in Active Learning." Journal of Political Science Education 18 (4): 511 – 522. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2022.2099410.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Musil, Caryn McTighe. 2017. " Excerpts from a Crucible Moment and Civic Prompts." In Teaching Civic Engagement across the Disciplines, eds. Elizabeth C. Matto, Alison Rios Millett McCartney, Elizabeth A. Bennion, and Dick Simpson, Washington, DC : American Political Science Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mutz, D. C. 2002. " Cross-Cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice." American Political Science Review 96 (1): 111 – 126. doi: 10.1017/S0003055402004264.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mutz, D. C., and J. J. Mondak. 2006. " The Workplace as a Context for Cross-Cutting Political Discourse." The Journal of Politics 68 (1): 140 – 155. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00376.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Odom, S. F., S. P. Ho, and L. L. Moore. 2014. " The Undergraduate Leadership Teaching Assistant (ULTA." Journal of Leadership Education 13 (2): 152 – 161. doi: 10.12806/V13/I2/A2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget, J. 1965. The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York : Free Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget, J. 1985. The Equilibration of Cognitive Structures: The Central Problem in Intellectual Development. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Price, V., J.N. Cappella, and L. Nir. 2002. " Does Disagreement Contribute to More Deliberative Opinions?" Political Communication 19 (1): 95 – 112. doi: 10.1080/105846002317246506.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Redaelii, E. 2015. " Educating for Participation: Democratic Life and Performative Learning." The Journal of General Education 64 (4): 334 – 353.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rhodes, J. 2012. " The Ties That Divide: Bonding Social Capital, Religious Friendship Networks, and Political Tolerance among Evangelicals." Sociological Inquiry 82 (2): 163 – 186. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2012.00409.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers, C., and R. Farson. 1987. " Active listening." In Communicating in Business Today, eds. R. G. Newman, M. A. Danzinger, M. Cohen. Washington DC : Heath and Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sears, D. O., and C. L. Funk. 1999. " Evidence of Long-Term Persistence of Adults' Political Predispositions." The Journal of Politics 61 (1): 1 – 28. doi: 10.2307/2647773.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheufele, D. A., M. C. Nisbet, D. Brossard, and E. C. Nisbet. 2004. " Social Structure and Citizenship: Examining the Impacts of Social Setting, Network Heterogeneity, and Informational Variables on Political Participation." Political Communication 21 (3): 315 – 338. doi: 10.1080/10584600490481389.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siena, Susan, and Tiffany Roman. 2022. " Fighting Fake News: Using Peer Discussion Groups to Build News Media Literacy." PS: Political Science & Politics 55 (4): 821 – 827. doi: 10.1017/S1049096522000609.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stern, C., and T. Kleiman. 2015. " Know Thy Outgroup: Promoting Accurate Judgments of Political Attitude Differences through a Conflict Mindset." Social Psychological and Personality Science 6 (8): 950 – 958. doi: 10.1177/1948550615596209.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strachan, J. Cherie. 2017. " Deliberative pedagogy's feminist potential: Teaching our students to cultivate a more inclusive public sphere." In Deliberative Pedagogy: Teaching and Learning for Democratic Engagement, eds. Thomas, Maxine S., Idit Manosevitch, Nicholas V. Longo, and Timothy J. Shaffer. East Lansing : Michigan State University Press, 35 – 46.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suarez, J. 2017. " Promoting Civic Engagement in a Required General Education Course." In Teaching Civic Engagement across the Disciplines. eds. E. Matto, A. R. Millet McCartney, E. A. Bennion, D. Simpson. Washington, DC.: American Political Science Association</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Velez, J. J., J. Cano, M. S. Whittington, and K. J. Wolf. 2011. " Cultivating Change through Peer-Teaching." Journal of Agricultural Education 52 (1): 40 – 49. doi: 10.5032/jae.2011.01040.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallace, Ruth A. 1974. " An Alternative to Assembly-Line Education: Undergraduate Teaching Assistants." Teaching Sociology 2 (1): 3 – 14. doi: 10.2307/1317240.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weger, Harry, Jr., G. R. Castle, and M. C. Emmett. 2010. " Active Listening in Peer Interviews: The Influence of Message Paraphrasing on Perceptions of Listening Skill." International Journal of Listening 24 (1): 34 – 49. doi: 10.1080/10904010903466311.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright, W. 2013. " Managing Communication and Disputes: The Multicultural Classroom." Counterpoints 391 : 29 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou, S., and N. Barbaro. 2023. Understanding Student Expression across Higher Ed: Heterodox Academy's Annual Campus Expression Survey. Heterodox Academy. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://heterodoxacademy.org/files/CES-Fall-2022-fv-c.pdf</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lynne Chandler Garcia and Stacy Ulbig</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Lynne Chandler Garcia is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Her areas of research within the scholarship of teaching and learning include civil discourse, empathy and efficacy in political behavior, and the art of pedagogy for underprivileged learners. Her foreign policy publications range in topics from military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, supply chain issues, space policy, and civil-military relations.</p> <p>Stacy G. Ulbig currently holds the position of Professor of Political Science at Sam Houston State University. Her research focuses on questions about political psychology, political behavior, and media politics. She regularly teaches undergraduate courses in American Government, Texas Government, Attitudes & Behavior, Politics & the Media, and Statistical Methods.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib321" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref102"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1423510
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Building Political Discourse Skills: Students as Teachers
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lynne+Chandler+Garcia%22">Lynne Chandler Garcia</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3512-5853">0000-0002-3512-5853</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stacy+Ulbig%22">Stacy Ulbig</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Political+Science+Education%22"><i>Journal of Political Science Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 20(2):218-239.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 22
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Political+Issues%22">Political Issues</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Role%22">Teacher Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discourse+Modes%22">Discourse Modes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Political+Science%22">Political Science</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Relationship%22">Interpersonal Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Teaching%22">Peer Teaching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Perspective+Taking%22">Perspective Taking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Controversial+Issues+%28Course+Content%29%22">Controversial Issues (Course Content)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/15512169.2023.2267150
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1551-2169<br />1551-2177
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In a highly polarized political environment, political discourse on divisive topics is all the more important. Heeding the many calls for higher education to teach political discourse skills, this study investigates the impact of political discourse lessons in a college-level, political science classroom. Further, it explores the effectiveness of student-peers as teachers. The study finds peers, compared to faculty, are better able to relate to students, and this strength is ideal for teaching subjects that require social connections such as the active listening and perspective taking techniques. Discussion of sensitive political topics can easily lead to discomfort and uneasiness. Our findings suggest that student learners may be more receptive to peer-leaders than to instructors when it comes to such situations. Further peer-teachers experienced increased comfort levels when involved in controversial political discussions and increased ability to engage in political dialogue.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1423510
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1423510
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/15512169.2023.2267150
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 22
        StartPage: 218
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Political Issues
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discourse Modes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Political Science
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Teaching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Perspective Taking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Controversial Issues (Course Content)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Building Political Discourse Skills: Students as Teachers
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lynne Chandler Garcia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stacy Ulbig
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1551-2169
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1551-2177
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 20
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Political Science Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1