Teaching public policy research skills to tomorrow’s leaders

College students increasingly need to understand the role that data plays in public policy decisions as they seek to be engaged participants in civic life. As it turns out, most Americans agree with us that an awareness of how data-driven research affects policymaking can prepare young people for the future. Nearly 80 per cent of respondents within each generation – from the Silent Generation to Gen Z – agree that young people should be provided with “training to help them understand the political system or solve problems in their communities”, according to a January 2024 PRRI survey.

What do young people learn when they are trained in the fundamentals of public policy research? First, they come to know the structure of the political system through its important public policymaking institutions. They also acquire policy research tools to evaluate how these institutions operate; later, these same tools can be used to solve problems in their communities.

• Advice for building data literacy on campus
• Collection: how to support higher education in upholding democracy
• Election special: how can higher education make its case amid political change?

We combined our team’s expertise in public policy research and instructional design to facilitate a six-week fully online summer policy research institute (SPRI) at the University of Iowa from 2020 to 2022. The SPRI’s purpose was to train any university student, regardless of their experience or location, in how research supports public policy and about key mindsets and practices associated with public policy research.

A blended learning institute for training young people

The SPRI combined multiple learning methods, such as asynchronous online lessons combined with live sessions. The SPRI’s blend, described as “bi-chronous” online learning, involved asynchronous and synchronous online approaches. Participants were required to participate in two hours of synchronous/live classes and at least one hour of asynchronous learning per week. Students were encouraged to spend more time, but three hours was the minimum.

SPRI’s blend was informed by best practices in instructional design. First, we used backwards design to define learning objectives before developing learning experiences. The SPRI’s learning objectives and content align with the Entering Research (ER) conceptual framework, a popular approach for research trainees’ development. We tackled six core topics: research ethics, research communication, research team roles and responsibilities, research design, qualitative research methods, and quantitative research methods.

Second, we struck a balance between asynchronous and synchronous online learning experiences. Each week, students completed a custom-built asynchronous learning module – which consisted of curated readings, videos (original and from YouTube) and quizzes – followed by a synchronous active-learning session held over Zoom. For the live sessions, we adapted ER content and developed original content to be delivered by instructors and guest speakers associated with our university’s Public Policy Center, whose expertise ranged broadly across areas including health, education and criminal justice policy. One example of a training activity we facilitated was the “three-minute research story” ER activity to practise strategies for communication about technical subjects. In weekly synchronous “sharing sessions”, students delivered short presentations describing a policy research project of their choosing. Finally, several students published policy briefs they had coauthored with faculty mentors on the centre’s website.

This balance illustrates how our blend used scaffolded activities to support and enhance learning. After starting with fundamental understandings of core research and public policy concepts, we advanced to real-world applications. We devoted special attention to supporting learning transfer; we took students step by step towards how to apply information gleaned from the SPRI within directed research experiences.

Evaluating using a blended approach to teaching public policy research

Given the six-week timeline and the diversity of our participants’ backgrounds and experience levels, we sought evidence that showed the SPRI had achieved its learning objectives.

One metric of the SPRI’s success is its alignment with learning science principles. Our approach to integrating videos, readings and quizzes with structured live sessions drew on insights from the learning sciences. We worked to guide students as they formed connections with new information that expanded on their prior knowledge (building associations) to present content in both words and visuals (dual coding) and to organise information into manageable units (chunking). Also, we worked to stimulate deep mental processing, where meaningful learning took place through activities such as reflection, discussions, debates and receiving expert feedback. Here, it’s important to note that success in blended learning may require instructors to embrace student-centred, active learning designs, as opposed to an instructor-centred, content-driven approach.

We also used the ER learning assessment to evaluate how students perceived their learning gains. They reported consistent moderate or better gains across the ER learning objectives. Students reported greatest average gains in research ethics and equity and inclusion awareness and skills, followed by research comprehension and communication skills; researcher confidence and independence; practical research skills, and researcher identity. Our students also reported that, on average, they were very likely to recommend the SPRI to another student and were more likely to continue research after SPRI.

Overall, this evidence suggests that SPRI is a model that others can use to prepare students for the future. Through public policy research, young people develop the skills to understand the political system and solve problems in their communities.